BQ study: "...no evidence that racing bikes have become significantly faster..."

[BengeBoy]

In the latest issue of Bicycle Quarterly, which just arrived yesterday, they test several new racing bikes (including a Trek Madone) and then explore whether they can find evidence to suggest that improvements in cycling technology have improved racing speeds.

Their conclusion: "There is no evidence that racing bikes have become significantly faster during the last 40 years."

Their methodology is interesting: they examine actual racing speeds from from the Tour de France over the last 100 years. They also examine speeds from the Milan-San Remo race, which has been run on the same course for 100 years.

Then, as a "control," they tracked down the best speeds for running the 5k and 10k on track for each year over the last 100 years.

The theory is that the top men's running speeds will show the trend of how much general athletic performance has improved in the last 100 years, due to improvements in diet, training, specialization of athletes, etc.. The hypothesis is that if bike technology has led to faster real-world cycling speeds, the cyclists' average racing speeds would have improved faster than running speeds.

Their conclusion: almost all improvements in cycling speeds is attributable to general improvements in athletic performance (cycling speeds have not risen faster than running speeds). [for stats geeks, the correlation was 88%; they attribute the remaining unexplained variation to general variability]

They examine long-term speed trends during each period of the Tour's history -- looking at whether improvements in road surfaces, frame technology, aerodynamics in TT bikes, etc. have really helped. They also look at a couple of periods when the TdF's speeds decreased -- the 20's (hypothesis: loss of a generation of racers to WWI) and since 2005 (hypothesis: stricter doping controls).

Conclusion: "There is no evidence that advances in cycling technology since WW II have led to faster racing speeds....this does not preclude that modern bicycles are slightly faster than traditional ones, but the effect clearly is too small to detect....this means that the best recipe for riding faster is training harder and smarter, rather than trying to buy speed with the latest bicycle technology."

http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/currentissue.html

Some of you who subscribe to BQ may already be familiar with editor Jan Heine's work over the years to examine the course of modern cycling development. The underlying premise of a lot of the BQ articles is that in real world applications a lot of modern "racing" technology (e.g., super-narrow tires) does not lead to faster times or better experiences for most cycling enthusiasts (even serious ones).


I have already hidden this issue from my wife, who was just wondering the other day why I put a new Campy group on my old steel racing frame...

[auto_rock]

C'mon man, you put campy on your old frame because it was sexy.

I am, however, going to get ahold of this magazine.

[witcombusa]

Jan has his own agenda, so take it all with a grain of salt :no:

[Rueda Tropical]

Jan has his own agenda, so take it all with a grain of salt :no:

He may have his own preferences but he lays out his logic, evidence and sources and anyone is free to poke holes in it. Saying he "has an agenda" doesn't shed much light on the subject one way or the other.

Jan has repeatedly stated his preference for wider tires, saying they are faster. But all his own published tests rate 2 23mm tires (Deda and Challenge) as the fastest he has tested. Faster then any of the wide 650B tires he regularly rides (at least in rolling resistance). So he doesn't let his "agenda" get in the way of his findings.

I don't agree with everything he says but he challenges the conventional wisdom and actually tests in as objective a way as he can given his resources his own and others assumptions. His magazine is almost always an interesting read.

[rcnute]

Another way might be to put a pro racer on both bikes and see what happens.

Great issue as always.

[Louis]

If they were not faster it's clearly because they were not using the Sidi Paolo Bettini limited edition shoes. Wear those and you get an additional 1.8 mph avg.

[bigreen505]

Another way might be to put a pro racer on both bikes and see what happens.

Great issue as always.

I'm far from a pro racer, but a couple years ago I was trying to convince my dad to get a road bike again and that you don't have to be in the dirt to have fun. He rode my bike and I pulled the old Atala out of the closet (ca. 1983, Oria tubing, Campy). To even the match just a bit I put modern wheels on the Atala and 12-28 XTR cassette so I had some hope of pedaling it up the hill -- aside from the cassette, both bikes had the same wheels. My dad practically horizoned me before he realized I wasn't on his wheel anymore. Going downhill was pretty much the same deal though I could make up a little time in the corners since I knew the road, but he would pull me on the flats and he wasn't even trying.

I suppose that the difference in times may seem statistically insignificant, but in a race, I have trouble believing that riders on bikes with 15 year old technology could really be competitive. Ok, sure your old Legend or CSI is still fast, especially with your new Campy Super Record and 404s, but taken as a whole, new bikes are faster.

Or maybe the PED of old were just much faster than what the peleton is using today. :D

[MattTuck]

Interesting approach.

I think there are probably a few technological advances like the transition from toe clips to hard sole shoes and clipless pedals that allow more energy to transfer from body to bike. Those types of improvements should be one time and I'd think statistically significant (ie. over the period of time during which the the peloton adopted that technology.)

This analysis also assumes that all improvement in running is attributed to training/fitness/diet type improvements and not the result of track material improvements, foot wear or clothing improvements.

[BengeBoy]

.My dad practically horizoned me before he realized I wasn't on his wheel anymore. Going downhill was pretty much the same deal though I could make up a little time in the corners since I knew the road, but he would pull me on the flats and he wasn't even trying.

I think your Dad's version of the story would be, "I kicked my son's butt today." :) :)

[rockdude]

IMO, in TT event and Hill climbs, you will see some advantages from the aero effect and the weight but on the road, not so much. Its not about the bike, at least when you are talking road racing speed.

[goonster]

Jan has his own agenda
What would that be?

How would his agenda skew the analysis of 100 years' worth of data in this case?

Do you know of any cycling publications that don't have an agenda?

[avalonracing]

Isn't easy enough to have a top rider run the same course on a new bike and a vintage bike a few times? That would make the most sense to me.

[TimmyB]

This analysis also assumes that all improvement in running is attributed to training/fitness/diet type improvements and not the result of track material improvements, foot wear or clothing improvements.
This was my problem with the study. Footwear's come a long ways in 100 years. Hell, even in the last 50. Not that I wanted to agree with the story anyways. I need justification for my light carbon race bike :banana:

[rockdude]

This was my problem with the study. Footwear's come a long ways in 100 years. Hell, even in the last 50. Not that I wanted to agree with the story anyways. I need justification for my light carbon race bike :banana:

Running Footwear has made it full circle. Barefoot or running with no support is the n thing now. Just like it was when I was a kid. :)

[rnhood]

One issue is that this study, judging by what you posted since I don't get or want the BQ, is that it is only looking at the pro's.

The amount of power to lift weight a given distance at a given speed can be calculated very accurately. So, lets say a new hip carbon bike weighs 4 lbs less than old steel racing bike - a reasonable difference I would say. We calculate and lets say it takes 8 watts to lift that 4 lbs a given distance. A top pro puts out near 400 watts while climbing (Basso did this the other day up Zoncalon). You and me though, well we put out maybe 200 watts. So, the 4 lbs difference represents 2% to the pro but, 4% to us. 4% may not seem like a lot but, it will be noticeable.

[Vancouverdave]

Another interesting control (although probably beyond Jan Heine's resources and connections to pull off--but perhaps not!) would be to put modern carbon fiber sprint track bikes under a few Japanese keirin (sp?) racers with recorded race time histories--keirin has purposely kept bikes uniform for decades. Riders in that cycling format might be the equivalent for athletic performance studies in reference to equipment, that Mt. St. Helens is to wildlife study--an environment that has been kept in one version of "pure" for an extended time.

[Rueda Tropical]

There may be a lot of other unaccounted for factors like changing race tactics and radios affecting average times. IN the last tour Astana had the whole Peloton reigned in for the whole Tour that certainly affected average times. I'm surprised vastly improved road surfaces didn't have an affect on speed. Even if average times may not have changed much, are spin ups in sprints faster? Are accelerations in mountain attacks faster. I would think brifters and clipless pedals might have an effect when split second reactions and sudden accelerations make a difference.

I haven't yet seen the article but the impact of aero equipment in TT is well documented even by Jan in BQ so all things being equal the same rider in a more aero position will be faster then the same rider in a less aero one though even there the riders position being more aero has a bigger impact then the equipment being aero.

There are lots of factors and as someone else pointed out on this thread and Jan pointed out in an article about equipment impact on time in PBP, the slower you are, the bigger a percentage difference small equipment improvements make. Most "advances" don't stand the test of time but a few do and do advance the technology.

[David Kirk]

I think there are a good number of things here at play but in the end it all boils down to just a few things.

* will the equipment allow the rider to produce more watts?

* will the equipment require fewer watts to go a given speed?

* will the equipment handle better and give more confidence to push the limits on downhills and sprints?

* will the equipment better transfer the riders energy from the body to the bike - as in rider interface - as mostly in shoes.

I would think that some of these things are a bit better now than they were years ago but the gains are much, much smaller than we like to tell ourselves for straight up road bikes. A fast rider will still be the fast rider regardless of the bike they are on (assuming the fit is right and it's the proper stiffness).

For time trail bikes it's a different world between now and then but for road bikes, as much as it irks me to agree with the author, I think he's headed in the right direction.

I think one thing we have now is greater comfort. Saddles are better, tires are better, handlebars are better, shoes/pedals are better and all these things make the task at hand more pleasant and that in turn might make the rider fresher and better able to apply force but for the pro racer this is seldom the issue. I think for me it makes a difference to have modern light weight shoes - I enjoy long rides more - but I doubt I'm faster because of them.

If I'm faster it's because I've done more hill repeats.

Dave

[tch]

...but I'd be willing to bet that there are some innovations which have been statistically important -- I'd suggest aero bars and wheels and tubing in Individual TT, overall weight loss of bikes in 40 years, and modern shoe/pedal technology as being significant. OTOH, I'd warrant that a lot of "improvements" -- such as aero profiles on road bikes, integrated seat masts, and the "latest carbon technology" are NOT particularly significant. And, when you tease it all out, real world application may be significant for an individual (if you win a time trial by 4 seconds, anything you did to give you those 4 seconds is huge), but not so much for the whole.

IIRC, I believe someone once wrote a book called "It's Not About the Bike". I'm willing to bet he'd beat 99.9% of us riding a 20 year-old steel frame and downtube shifters -- and perhaps 80% of the pro peloton.

[rustychain]

Ever been passed in the final sprint by some dude riding an old bike shaped object?I have. It's silly IMO to think you can't be competitve on an old bike. Heck in a crit I may be faster knowing that if I go down I won't have to sell a kidney to pay for repairs ;)

[rounder]

Ti has it right. We should spend less time shopping for new bikes, and spend more time making our bikes, that we already have, go faster.

[Joellogicman]

Running Footwear has made it full circle. Barefoot or running with no support is the n thing now. Just like it was when I was a kid. :)

Didn't a runner win a major marathon - want to say New York - barefoot within the year?

Improvements to shoes and tracks would be duplicated by improvements in tires (presumably even BQ agrees tires today are better than 40 years ago) and roads.

[Joellogicman]

I think one thing we have now is greater comfort. Saddles are better, tires are better, handlebars are better, shoes/pedals are better and all these things make the task at hand more pleasant and that in turn might make the rider fresher and better able to apply force but for the pro racer this is seldom the issue. I think for me it makes a difference to have modern light weight shoes - I enjoy long rides more - but I doubt I'm faster because of them.

If I'm faster it's because I've done more hill repeats.

Dave

Thanks for putting it so well.

[goonster]

presumably even BQ agrees tires today are better than 40 years ago
Mass-market clinchers are better, but not high-end tires.

Nobody makes silk casing tubulars anymore, and the handmade FMB and Dugast tires are probably roughly on par with the top tires of yesteryear (afaik), while availability is greatly reduced (e.g. there are no top quality handmade tires in some sizes).

[sevencyclist]

Interesting way by Jan of measuring the "speed" of bikes, by looking at the racing speed. I would have Andy Hampsten ride his old 7-11 Serotta and a modern bike set up to be exact same geometry and see which one is faster. And then set up both bikes to his preferred contact points for now, and see which one is faster. If both are in favor of a particular bike, then we might have a winner.

There are so many variables in a race situation (like TV, mobile phone technology) that influence the race situation so average speed can vary. It is an interesting concept what he is doing though.

[Joellogicman]

Mass-market clinchers are better, but not high-end tires.

Nobody makes silk casing tubulars anymore, and the handmade FMB and Dugast tires are probably roughly on par with the top tires of yesteryear (afaik), while availability is greatly reduced (e.g. there are no top quality handmade tires in some sizes).

I was thinking the mass market. Hand mades are sorely missed.

[Joellogicman]

Interesting way by Jan of measuring the "speed" of bikes, by looking at the racing speed. I would have Andy Hampsten ride his old 7-11 Serotta and a modern bike set up to be exact same geometry and see which one is faster. And then set up both bikes to his preferred contact points for now, and see which one is faster. If both are in favor of a particular bike, then we might have a winner.

Unless the rider spends a lot of time on each of the bikes before the test, arguably the rider will perform better on the bike set up the way the rider normally has it.

A well conceived test like this would be very interesting.

[mike p]

For regular road race's I don't think your really hindered at all by a twenty year old bike. I switch back and forth from and old serotta CRL to a brand new CF wonder and have never been able to tell any difference in results. The new CF wonder does seem to squirt you forward with every little bit you put into the pedals but but it's never made any difference in a rr. I even set up a small 5 mi loop with hills and timed myself, no difference. I know it's not scientific but good enough for me.
STI vs DT...While STI is more convenient I don't think it's going to make any difference in winning or losing a race.
Clippless vs toe strap...While clippless is better and more convenient one is not going to make you win or lose a race.
I believe the only things that have come along lately that make much of a difference are weight savings and being more aerodynamic. I find a couple 2 or 3 lbs to be not that significant for me and much of the aeroness of modern bikes is cancelled out in all but solo breakaways.
Mike

[Ti Designs]

Without a rider all bikes perform about the same - as a very large paper weight.

[nm87710]

Is it April 1st?? ;)

[palincss]

Interesting way by Jan of measuring the "speed" of bikes, by looking at the racing speed. I would have Andy Hampsten ride his old 7-11 Serotta and a modern bike set up to be exact same geometry and see which one is faster. And then set up both bikes to his preferred contact points for now, and see which one is faster. If both are in favor of a particular bike, then we might have a winner.


Thing is, I don't believe BQ happens to have Andy Hampsten on the payroll.

[Frankwurst]

You can buy technology. You can't buy time in the saddle. Try them both and see which one makes you faster. :beer:

[michael white]

of course, with athletics, it's the athlete.

but let's do another performance test. Let's say you've got a ride coming up which you expect to be challenging. You've got the older bikes with Campy friction, and you've got newer bikes with newer stuff. Without thinking, which one do you find yourself grabbing? I have been running this test for decades, and find myself grabbing the lighter, more currently outfitted bikes most of the time in these situations, and I expect that's how it is for most cyclists. I think it's weird when people dismiss the idea of technological progress as so much marketing. How about a happy medium?

[Joellogicman]

I have been running this test for decades, and find myself grabbing the lighter, more currently outfitted bikes most of the time in these situations, and I expect that's how it is for most cyclists. I think it's weird when people dismiss the idea of technological progress as so much marketing. How about a happy medium?

Are you selecting the more current bike because it is faster, or more comfortable? Have not seen the article yet, but the reviews here suggest the focus is on the former.

Technology advances not withstanding, the only saddles that work for me anyway are good old fashion design hammock frame leather.

[palincss]

I think it's weird when people dismiss the idea of technological progress as so much marketing. How about a happy medium?


I haven't got my issue yet - BQ arrives here about a month after the first ones hit the mailboxes - but it sure sounds to me as though what Jan did was attempt to test the idea of technological progress empirically, not dismiss it as so much marketing. That sounds like a very happy medium to me between dismissing the idea outright and accepting it as gospel on faith. What was the "happy medium" you had in mind?

[Ralph]

It's kinda obvious to me that at the top level in Pro cycling, they know more about how to go fast, and equipment is better and more aero than in the past. They know more about training, and how to get results. With all the money involved, racers have to be more dedicated at the top levels. You don't see riders killing a bottle of wine the night before another stage of an important race, etc.

But on a mass club ride on Sunday morning, I don't see how modern equipment makes much difference. Just check out the bellies of the riders on some of those 16 lb CF wonders. When I started riding in early 70's, hi end bikes weighed 22-23 lbs. Now they are lighter. But if the rider is too heavy, and few weekend atheletes have ideal BMI's, does it matter if bike is light? So I agree, while there are plenty of exceptions among riders, for the most part, most riders are not faster on new equipment. But they could be. MHO

[toasttoast]

so he's comparing bike times over the last 100 years to track 5k and 10k times?

...

i hope they factored in for the "discovery" (or whatever you wanna call it) of distance-running talent in ethiopia, kenya, and the rest of east africa.

maybe bike technology has improved cycling to the same degree as that.

[WadePatton]

doesn't it muddy the water some when in nearly all professional bicycle racing, the racers aren't racing a clock?

one only has to go fast enough to beat the other guy to win the race. 1920 or 2020.

with the communications systems employed today, the peloton rarely fails to catch the break...of course always at the last possible moment and then you have the successful breaks playing cat/mouse for sprint position for a k or two, sometimes three.

[goonster]

doesn't it muddy the water some when in nearly all professional bicycle racing, the racers aren't racing a clock?

one only has to go fast enough to beat the other guy to win the race. 1920 or 2020.
Then why do 100 years of data correlate so well?

Anyway, your argument is that the peloton could go faster, but doesnt. It's final speed is determined by the breakaway . . . which is going as fast as it can.

[Bob Ross]

For regular road race's I don't think your really hindered at all by a twenty year old bike. I switch back and forth from and old serotta CRL to a brand new CF wonder and have never been able to tell any difference in results. ... I even set up a small 5 mi loop with hills and timed myself, no difference.

^^^This. Now, admittedly, I suspect that if the loop were longer -- much longer, let's say, like 40 or 50 miles -- I might see different results.


Let's say you've got a ride coming up which you expect to be challenging. You've got the older bikes with Campy friction, and you've got newer bikes with newer stuff. Without thinking, which one do you find yourself grabbing? I have been running this test for decades, and find myself grabbing the lighter, more currently outfitted bikes most of the time in these situations, and I expect that's how it is for most cyclists.

^^^This too. If I'm going out for an early-morning fast training laps with the local hammerheads, it won't make a difference (in terms of my hanging with the pack) which bike I ride, so I grab whichever one suits my fancy at the moment. However, if I'm going out for an all-day epic fast century with several thousand feet of climbing, it would take a serious lapse in judgement for me to grab the 25-year-old, downtube friction shifter-equipped, 7-speed, ~24lb beast.


Are you selecting the more current bike because it is faster, or more comfortable?

What I've noticed is that my top speeds and my average speeds are no different from bike to bike...but the ease with which I can reach & maintain those speeds is much greater on the modern bike. Does that count as "comfort"?

[BillG]

I would think next to time trialing sprinting, not overall stage speed, would be where you would see the biggest difference. The combination of brifters and stiffness probably makes a significant difference in top sprinting speed.

[nahtnoj]

So how did they control for all the technological advances in track for the past 100 years?

For instance, an all weather track is about 2 seconds per lap faster than a cinder track.

Edit - no disagreement from me about the general conclusion, just curious.

[palincss]

The combination of brifters and stiffness probably makes a significant difference in top sprinting speed.


I believe this assumes an increase in frame stiffness. Do we have any actual evidence that this is so?

[drewski]

Jan has his own agenda, so take it all with a grain of salt :no:


Its very easy to reduce Jan's or anybody's else's work down to pithy 1 sentence critique. Easy but flawed. I appreciate than Jan is willing
to attack established thinking. For full disclosure purposes, I subscribe to his magazine.

[drewski]

Some of you folks out there sound like you would have attacked Galileo
if you would have been hanging out during the age of enlightenment.

"GET OUT OF THE DARK AGES"

[sg8357]

I believe this assumes an increase in frame stiffness. Do we have any actual evidence that this is so?

This is BQ, the old bikes planning vs. the new bikes lower weight cancel
each other out, voila, no increase in race speeds. :) :) :)

[johnnymossville]

Very interesting topic. there are a lot of little advances (gearing, stiffness, weight, shifting, braking) that have made bikes faster and I suspect the differences are mostly noticeable in more extreme riding, Sprinting, Climbing, Descending, Cornering.

I would think tooling along at 25mph on a flat road with a similar gear ratio is going to show little or no gain in performance over the last 40 years.

[oldpotatoe]

Interesting approach.

I think there are probably a few technological advances like the transition from toe clips to hard sole shoes and clipless pedals that allow more energy to transfer from body to bike. Those types of improvements should be one time and I'd think statistically significant (ie. over the period of time during which the the peloton adopted that technology.)

This analysis also assumes that all improvement in running is attributed to training/fitness/diet type improvements and not the result of track material improvements, foot wear or clothing improvements.

There really hasn't been any true innovations in bike 'stuff' since the 80s. Clipless pedals, lever mounted shifting, etc. Much more innovation on bike fit, diet, fitness, riding and racing smart.

[palincss]

And better doping, too, right? This is, after all, professional racing we're talking about...

[Polyglot]

What an absolute and total load of bull hockey.

In the latest issue of Bicycle Quarterly, which just arrived yesterday, they test several new racing bikes (including a Trek Madone) and then explore whether they can find evidence to suggest that improvements in cycling technology have improved racing speeds.

Their conclusion: "There is no evidence that racing bikes have become significantly faster during the last 40 years."

Their methodology is interesting: they examine actual racing speeds from from the Tour de France over the last 100 years. They also examine speeds from the Milan-San Remo race, which has been run on the same course for 100 years.

Since when does the speed of any one day or grand tour have any impact on the winner? It doesn't. To take speeds from varying years has no impact whatsoever. To win you must only beat the second fastest across the line by milliseconds. Furthermore Milan-San Remo has not used the same course for 100 years. Not even close. The course has been modified continuously. Perhaps nothing major, but the changes have occurred. New hills have been added and gradients have been leveled. A far more indicative statistic would be to check the time gaps between first and last, and first and peloton.

Then, as a "control," they tracked down the best speeds for running the 5k and 10k on track for each year over the last 100 years.

The theory is that the top men's running speeds will show the trend of how much general athletic performance has improved in the last 100 years, due to improvements in diet, training, specialization of athletes, etc.. The hypothesis is that if bike technology has led to faster real-world cycling speeds, the cyclists' average racing speeds would have improved faster than running speeds.

This too is complete nonsense as the biggest limitation to a cyclist's forward motion is wind resistance which does not increase in a linear fashion, which is to say that wind resistance at 10 mph is not half of that at 20 mph. So the difference that they are studying must also take into account the relative impact of wind resistance which I take they have not done.

Their conclusion: almost all improvements in cycling speeds is attributable to general improvements in athletic performance (cycling speeds have not risen faster than running speeds). [for stats geeks, the correlation was 88%; they attribute the remaining unexplained variation to general variability]

They examine long-term speed trends during each period of the Tour's history -- looking at whether improvements in road surfaces, frame technology, aerodynamics in TT bikes, etc. have really helped. They also look at a couple of periods when the TdF's speeds decreased -- the 20's (hypothesis: loss of a generation of racers to WWI) and since 2005 (hypothesis: stricter doping controls).

Here too they show their total lack of research or scientific foundation. Firstly because the variations from year to year are often far greater than from decade to decade, secondly what makes for an improvement in road surface? Did anybody notice that the recent runnings of the Paris-Roubaix have shown that speed does not necessarily diminish on bad road surfaces (http://bikeraceinfo.com/classics/paris-roubaix/paris-roubaix-index.html). In fact the Paris Roubaix generally requires a faster average speed to win than most other classics. For a comparison, look at Amstel Gold (http://bikeraceinfo.com/classics/Amstel%20Gold%20Race/amstelindex.html) or Giro di Lombardia (http://bikeraceinfo.com/classics/Tour%20of%20Lombardy/lombindx.html) which are both run over generally very good smooth road surfaces

Conclusion: "There is no evidence that advances in cycling technology since WW II have led to faster racing speeds....this does not preclude that modern bicycles are slightly faster than traditional ones, but the effect clearly is too small to detect....this means that the best recipe for riding faster is training harder and smarter, rather than trying to buy speed with the latest bicycle technology."

Duh! who ever said that buying speed was easier than through better training? Modern bicycles are however faster than they have ever been and only a fool would try to maintain that this is not true. The speed difference is also measurable and appreciable.


Some of you who subscribe to BQ may already be familiar with editor Jan Heine's work over the years to examine the course of modern cycling development. The underlying premise of a lot of the BQ articles is that in real world applications a lot of modern "racing" technology (e.g., super-narrow tires) does not lead to faster times or better experiences for most cycling enthusiasts (even serious ones).


I have already hidden this issue from my wife, who was just wondering the other day why I put a new Campy group on my old steel racing frame...

Most cycling enthusiasts do not need and cannot differentiate or benefit from the difference between a mid range and a top range bike frame or components. If teh new components make you happy and get you to ride teh bike more often or with a bigger smile, they are worth every penny.

[retrogrouchy]

He may have his own preferences but he lays out his logic, evidence and sources and anyone is free to poke holes in it. Saying he "has an agenda" doesn't shed much light on the subject one way or the other.

Jan has repeatedly stated his preference for wider tires, saying they are faster. But all his own published tests rate 2 23mm tires (Deda and Challenge) as the fastest he has tested. Faster then any of the wide 650B tires he regularly rides (at least in rolling resistance). So he doesn't let his "agenda" get in the way of his findings.

I don't agree with everything he says but he challenges the conventional wisdom and actually tests in as objective a way as he can given his resources his own and others assumptions. His magazine is almost always an interesting read.

+1.

[djg]

He may have his own preferences but he lays out his logic, evidence and sources and anyone is free to poke holes in it. Saying he "has an agenda" doesn't shed much light on the subject one way or the other.

. . .
I don't agree with everything he says but he challenges the conventional wisdom and actually tests in as objective a way as he can given his resources his own and others assumptions. His magazine is almost always an interesting read.

Yeah, "as he can given his resources" -- which means his own human capital as well as the other bits. Poking holes in the quasi-proto-science-ish stuff is just not worth it. Tends to generate lots of heat on internet bike boards but not much light.

It's not that the conclusion seems so wildly off -- there were pretty good bearings 30 or 40 years ago, and some really nice tires, and things rolled just fine. I had record hubs in 1981 and they were smooth. And the mechanics of sitting on the saddle and turning the pedals haven't changed much. I wouldn't expect average grand tour speeds to show much of anything, because of the nature of that type of racing as much as anything about the bikes. But spinning or steaming along on flat or gently rolling terrain was about the same operation as it is now, although aero kit helps measurably in time trial mode. What of it? The new bikes do help the rider go a bit faster during the fast bits of racing -- a quicker, surer, multi-cog shift during a jump -- and at the margin might really matter during the hard parts. And no, they don't bump your tempo pace by three mph, or give you a sprint if you don't have one, much less make anybody twice as fast.

[palincss]

None of that might be news to a racer, but to an ordinary cyclist, don't you think it calls into question most of the marketing and hype of the past quarter century?

[TAW]

What an absolute and total load of bull hockey.



Since when does the speed of any one day or grand tour have any impact on the winner? It doesn't. To take speeds from varying years has no impact whatsoever. To win you must only beat the second fastest across the line by milliseconds. Furthermore Milan-San Remo has not used the same course for 100 years. Not even close. The course has been modified continuously. Perhaps nothing major, but the changes have occurred. New hills have been added and gradients have been leveled. A far more indicative statistic would be to check the time gaps between first and last, and first and peloton.



This too is complete nonsense as the biggest limitation to a cyclist's forward motion is wind resistance which does not increase in a linear fashion, which is to say that wind resistance at 10 mph is not half of that at 20 mph. So the difference that they are studying must also take into account the relative impact of wind resistance which I take they have not done.



Here too they show their total lack of research or scientific foundation. Firstly because the variations from year to year are often far greater than from decade to decade, secondly what makes for an improvement in road surface? Did anybody notice that the recent runnings of the Paris-Roubaix have shown that speed does not necessarily diminish on bad road surfaces (http://bikeraceinfo.com/classics/paris-roubaix/paris-roubaix-index.html). In fact the Paris Roubaix generally requires a faster average speed to win than most other classics. For a comparison, look at Amstel Gold (http://bikeraceinfo.com/classics/Amstel%20Gold%20Race/amstelindex.html) or Giro di Lombardia (http://bikeraceinfo.com/classics/Tour%20of%20Lombardy/lombindx.html) which are both run over generally very good smooth road surfaces



Duh! who ever said that buying speed was easier than through better training? Modern bicycles are however faster than they have ever been and only a fool would try to maintain that this is not true. The speed difference is also measurable and appreciable.



Most cycling enthusiasts do not need and cannot differentiate or benefit from the difference between a mid range and a top range bike frame or components. If teh new components make you happy and get you to ride teh bike more often or with a bigger smile, they are worth every penny.

Lots of good stuff in this post.

[dcuper1]

None of that might be news to a racer, but to an ordinary cyclist, don't you think it calls into question most of the marketing and hype of the past quarter century?

Yes, that is exactly what this article does. This article is not for the experienced cyclist who understands the latest carbon fiber bike won't make him faster, even though he buys it anyway. This article is much more suited for the newbies who read Bicycling Magazine, buy into the marketing hype of the latest Pinarello Dogma, and go out and shell out the money thinking it will really make them 3mph faster.

Disclaimer, I have nothing against the Pinarello Dogma, it is just the latest craze on Bicycling Magazine.

[goonster]

Since when does the speed of any one day or grand tour have any impact on the winner?
Of course it doesn't, but the BQ article doesn't attempt to establish that.


Here too they show their total lack of research or scientific foundation.
Jan has a PhD in a scientific field.

Let's not lose sight of the BQ article's hypothesis. They are not saying that bike races haven't gotten faster. They are showing a close correlation to increased speeds in another athletic discipline in which there are no bicycles.

[palincss]

Disclaimer, I have nothing against the Pinarello Dogma, it is just the latest craze on Bicycling Magazine.

That's the one they left in the car trunk until the fork melted, right?

[e-RICHIE]

Let's not lose sight of the BQ article's hypothesis. They are not saying that bike races haven't gotten faster. They are showing a close correlation to increased speeds in another athletic discipline in which there are no bicycles.


there's one thing about this that doesn't feel right atmo...
running is a race to the line.
there are no team tactics at play.
well, at least there are no tactics that are equal to the stop/start moments in cycling.
the only valid comparison i can see are individual efforts, or races over a fixed distance.
when i first started watching, a 4000 meter event on the track would often be near to 5 minutes for a 4 man team.
these days, individual pursuiters are closer to the 4 minute mark.
i'd say the bicycles definitely helped the speed here, and not just the training.

[goonster]

running is a race to the line.
there are no team tactics at play.

That's not always true. Championship races are often very different from races where a runner is making a record attempt. The former often have slower pacing in the early laps, while the latter feature "rabbits" who set a pre-determined fast pace before dropping out when the job is done.

While there are a lot of tactics in the peloton, a big part of the final average is determined by how long it takes Jacky Durand, Ludo Dierckxsens or Jens Voigt to get to the line.

when i first started watching, a 4000 meter event on the track would often be near to 5 minutes for a 4 man team.
these days, individual pursuiters are closer to the 4 minute mark.
i'd say the bicycles definitely helped the speed here, and not just the training.
That's the best possible argument in favor of bike tech, and the advances are mostly due to radical aero positions of the riders, no? How well does that translate to a bike you can ride all day on the road?

I'm sure that a large part of BQ's hypothesis is that a lot of this stuff normalizes out over 100 years. If team tactics had a dominant effect on average speeds, we'd see them vary more widely.

[Charles M]

Very interesting topic. there are a lot of little advances (gearing, stiffness, weight, shifting, braking) that have made bikes faster and I suspect the differences are mostly noticeable in more extreme riding, Sprinting, Climbing, Descending, Cornering.

I would think tooling along at 25mph on a flat road with a similar gear ratio is going to show little or no gain in performance over the last 40 years.


That's it...


You have to take very specific, high output, well controled / defined samples to get meaningfull info.

Look at times up Alpe D h or the base to top times for the mortirolo and or prologue speed over the same defined courses...

Of course the other variable here is "training/doping". But the samples need to toss out a lot of the non-racing racing and the differences in terrain.

[djg]

Of course it doesn't, but the BQ article doesn't attempt to establish that.


Jan has a PhD in a scientific field.

.

Does he? I seem to recall this sort of back and forth once before where it was claimed he had a degree in anthropology or some such field. Which might, at the edges, involve biological work or what have you (and yeah, there are areas where people do dna analysis), and might make use of applied methods in any case. But I seem to recall that his field did not imply any sort of background doing controlled experiments or serious analysis. I don't know his biography and I'm prepared to be called out on the details, but that's my recollection. The time I did try to wade through one of the "experiments" was some time back, and not encouraging, but I could be mistaken.

[fiamme red]

Does he? I seem to recall this sort of back and forth once before where it was claimed he had a degree in anthropology or some such field. Which might, at the edges, involve biological work or what have you (and yeah, there are areas where people do dna analysis), and might make use of applied methods in any case. But I seem to recall that his field did not imply any sort of background doing controlled experiments or serious analysis. I don't know his biography and I'm prepared to be called out on the details, but that's my recollection. The time I did try to wade through one of the "experiments" was some time back, and not encouraging, but I could be mistaken.To set the record straight, he got his PhD in geology from the University of Washington in 1997. Here's an abstract of his thesis:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhDT........47H

Here's an article authored by him, published in the Journal of Paleolimnology:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n2517r9174604421/

An interesting interview with Jan from last year: http://www.bicycletimesmag.com/content/interview-bicycle-quarterlys-jan-heine

[retrogrouchy]

To set the record straight, he got his PhD in geology from the University of Washington in 1997. Here's an abstract of his thesis:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhDT........47H

Here's an article authored by him, published in the Journal of Paleolimnology:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n2517r9174604421/

An interesting interview with Jan from last year: http://www.bicycletimesmag.com/content/interview-bicycle-quarterlys-jan-heine

I don't agree with everything Jan says (heck, I don't always agree with everything I say), but if you look at the bulk of it, and then look at where the craftsperson-built lugged steel niche has migrated to over the past decade or so, it's pretty amazing that a whole bunch of it traces back to one guy's relentless torch-carrying. There are many folks that I respect in the US bike culture, and Jan is certainly one of them. Not the only one, but one....

.... unlike GP (oops, that just slipped out, sorry). :D

[fiamme red]

I don't agree with everything Jan says (heck, I don't always agree with everything I say), but if you look at the bulk of it, and then look at where the craftsperson-built lugged steel niche has migrated to over the past decade or so, it's pretty amazing that a whole bunch of it traces back to one guy's relentless torch-carrying. There are many folks that I respect in the US bike culture, and Jan is certainly one of them. Not the only one, but one....

.... unlike GP (oops, that just slipped out, sorry). :DGP has done some very important torch-carrying too.

http://www.dirtragmag.com/blogarific/bicycle-industry-insider-profile-grant-petersen/

GP has made a huge difference to the success of my company. Rivendell doesn’t buy a lot of stuff form us but the culture he has created has brought a whole new demographic into the world of bikes, a culture that has helped vastly with the viability of Paul Component Engineering. He created a culture of riding nice bikes for something other than pure racing, for just cruising in flip flops or exploring at your own pace unknown to you, locals, roads and trails for fun-not just the speed at which you could get there. He also has reminded us of the beauty and usefulness of bikes in a way few have in recent times. Suddenly last year low to mid production roadish bikes began appearing with fenders, good tire clearance and non-crit geometry. I trace that straight back to Riv and the early days of what Grant was trying to accomplish.

Grant suggested to me to make a nice centerpull brake once, an item not seen for at least a decade. I thought he was nuts but also was buying stuff from Rivendell for my own bikes so on second thought maybe…turns out the Racer is filling a void I never thought existed. This is just an ongoing theme with lots of the customers he’s attracted who eventually check my site. Really, he’s created an entire branch, right off the base of the trunk of the world of cycling. It was maybe there before but that tree had shed that limb a long time ago.

Thank you so much Grant Peterson!

Paul Price
Paul Component Engineering

[palincss]

If memory serves, the reintroduction of Shimano long reach dual pivot brakes owes a lot to Grant as well.

[Joellogicman]

I don't agree with everything Jan says (heck, I don't always agree with everything I say), but if you look at the bulk of it, and then look at where the craftsperson-built lugged steel niche has migrated to over the past decade or so, it's pretty amazing that a whole bunch of it traces back to one guy's relentless torch-carrying. There are many folks that I respect in the US bike culture, and Jan is certainly one of them. Not the only one, but one....

I know he corresponds with Jan, but I believe Peter Weigle deserves a lot of credit for renewing interest in the lugged steel Rando style bicycle.

Peter learned his craft in the UK where he would have seen the bicycles well before Jan started publishing BQ. I believe Peter was showing his Rando bikes to great acclaim before BQ started publishing as well.

No doubt BQ has brought Peter and other's effort to a wider market.

[fiamme red]

I know he corresponds with Jan, but I believe Peter Weigle deserves a lot of credit for renewing interest in the lugged steel Rando style bicycle.

Peter learned his craft in the UK where he would have seen the bicycles well before Jan started publishing BQ. I believe Peter was showing his Rando bikes to great acclaim before BQ started publishing as well.

No doubt BQ has brought Peter and other's effort to a wider market.Jan Heine started to publish Vintage Bicycle Quarterly in 2002. I had seen randonneur bikes before then (e.g., Herse, Singer, Mariposa), but I don't think I ever saw a Weigle randonneur before 2004. Not saying he wasn't making them, but they were never on my radar.

[goonster]

The now-iconic Weigle randonneur (a truly gobsmackingly gorgeous and desirable bike) may have been built in 2002, but was shown at the Cirque in 2003.

Mike Barry deserves as much credit as anyone for keeping the rando-bike flame alive. Surely he made more purpose-built rando bikes with generator lighting, fenders and custom bag carriers than anyone in the 80's and 90's, save perhaps Gilles Berthoud.

A challenge for the forum: post a picture of a Weigle being ridden on a brevet.

[fiamme red]

The now-iconic Weigle randonneur (a truly gobsmackingly gorgeous and desirable bike) may have been built in 2002, but was shown at the Cirque in 2003.You are correct, he showed a randonneur at Cirque in 2003. It was a light blue bike, wasn't it?

Mike Barry deserves as much credit as anyone for keeping the rando-bike flame alive. Surely he made more purpose-built rando bikes with generator lighting, fenders and custom bag carriers than anyone in the 80's and 90's, save perhaps Gilles Berthoud.What about Cycles Alex Singer?

A challenge for the forum: post a picture of a Weigle being ridden on a brevet.That's a good one. :)

Not that a Weigle randonneur wouldn't be an ideal bike for a brevet, but most people who order custom randonneurs from JPW don't ride them much (if at all) at night or for long distances.

[goonster]

What about Cycles Alex Singer?
Of course I haven't seen their production figures, but I believe Jan mentioned that by the early 80's production of top-end handmade bikes had fallen so low that the Singer shop became more like a standard LBS with a sideline in framebuilding. He also said that when he first met Ernest Csuka in the late 90's, Singer had not filled an order from the U.S. in almost twenty years.

Not that a Weigle randonneur wouldn't be an ideal bike for a brevet, but most people who order custom randonneurs from JPW don't ride them much (if at all) at night or for long distances.
I have no idea what every single JPW bike is doing, but I would love to see more (any!) of those fantastic machines used for their (presumably) intended purpose.

[e-RICHIE]

You are correct, he showed a randonneur at Cirque in 2003. It was a light blue bike, wasn't it?


one data point atmo -

peter was making these things back in the 90s when all of us were showing/exhibiting at
flea markets, in parking lots, and at swap meets. his inner francophiliac was out long before
the message board era.

[Joellogicman]

Mike Barry deserves as much credit as anyone for keeping the rando-bike flame alive. Surely he made more purpose-built rando bikes with generator lighting, fenders and custom bag carriers than anyone in the 80's and 90's, save perhaps Gilles Berthoud.

Mike Barry was indeed making rando style bikes up in Canada at the same time.

As e-Richie says (and no doubts knows in far more detail than I), Peter was making simila bikes for quite some time.

Would not be surprised if for the first few years of publication, more people attended the Cirque than read (or even knew about for that matter) what was then the VBQ.

[goonster]

peter was making these things back in the 90s when all of us were showing/exhibiting at
flea markets, in parking lots, and at swap meets. his inner francophiliac was out long before
the message board era.
Nobody is questioning whether or not he made them. The question is whether anybody besides him, you and the people at the flea markets knew about them. I was a RUSA-registered randonneur pre-'03, and was actively scouring the market for the best purpose-built bikes. I found Mariposa, found Berthoud, found Dr. Brooks' Herses and Singers, but JPW was not on the radar as a builder of bikes with generators and big front bags.

[e-RICHIE]

I was a RUSA-registered randonneur pre-'03, and was actively scouring the market for the best purpose-built bikes. I found Mariposa, found Berthoud, found Dr. Brooks' Herses and Singers, but JPW was not on the radar as a builder of bikes with generators and big front bags.


how did you find these then atmo?
i know douglas doesn't do the long ride thing.
so - was it internet, or a local radar?

[goonster]

how did you find these then atmo?
i know douglas doesn't do the long ride thing.
so - was it internet, or a local radar?
Both. The radar is an array! ;)

Douglas may have never ridden sanctioned brevets, but the Riv site at one time identified him as "training for PBP" and he expressed some interest in that event to me directly as well.

I also talked to randonneurs I met on brevets, and that included riders who had ridden with BBS in New England although, admittedly, not all of their tastes ran toward the "classic".

None of this is to shortchange JPW's skill, craft, taste, experience, knowledge or contributions in any way whatsoever, and I'd like to reiterate, for the record, that nothing would make me happier than to see more of his work ridden in these events, which I love no less than you love cross.

[e-RICHIE]

Both. The radar is an array! ;)

Douglas may have never ridden sanctioned brevets, but the Riv site at one time identified him as "training for PBP" and he expressed some interest in that event to me directly as well.

I also talked to randonneurs I met on brevets, and that included riders who had ridden with BBS in New England although, admittedly, not all of their tastes ran toward the "classic".

None of this is to shortchange JPW's skill, craft, taste, experience, knowledge or contributions in any way whatsoever, and I'd like to reiterate, for the record, that nothing would make me happier than to see more of his work ridden in these events, which I love no less than you love cross.


thanks, and i am not interested in derailing the thread here, but i often
wonder about the rando thing, the f'builder thing, and where the synergy
is. is the average unit used in these events a store bought, industrial made
bicycle, or are there a fair amount of them made by the current generation
of internet builders who have embraced the french thing atmo? from where
i sit, it seems like most of the hommage (that's a french-y word) brands are
in the blogs and on flickr rather than in the first group (or similar) of finishers
in these distance events. what are you seeing at the race sites?

[Louis]

hommage


That's french for "cheese" :p

[goonster]

what are you seeing at the race sites?
I'm seeing a mish-mash of everything, with purpose-built "frenchy" bikes slowly growing into a larger slice of the pie.

With respect to synergy, I think that perhaps this type of bike requires an experienced customer who knows exactly what they want, and the spectrum of things to get right is wider than with a road bike that mostly just needs to fit.

In my own personal case I am working with a builder, Bilenky, who you would perhaps not consider part of the "internet age" and whose shop provides an impressive degree of institutional rando experience.

[drewski]

Non only does Jan H put together a very interesting publication:

Bicycle Quarterly, but he is quite a rider as well. He set the record
for PBP using a 50-60 year Rene Herse tandem. Talk about practicing
what you preach.

Of all the bicycles I have seen. I have to say that the Peter Weigle,
Stephen Bilenky, Brian Baylis American hand made steel builders
are some of the nicest designed and painted bicycles I have seen.
These guys are not only some of the nicest guys to chat with
but they are also outstanding craftspeople. I have to tip my hats
off to them for surviving during a time when a lot of people have
lost appreciation for craft.

Peter Weigle, Richard Sachs and Chris Chance (of FAT CHANCE fame)
all made bikes together at Witcomb.

Its good to know that folks who are keeping the tradition of
exquisitely crafted steel bicycles is still alive and well inthe good old USA.

There will always be a market for good design.


Andrew

[goonster]

He set the record
for PBP using a 50-60 year Rene Herse tandem. Talk about practicing
what you preach.
Let's keep our facts straight:

I don't know who holds the PBP tandem record, but it is not Jan. He and his stoker were the first mixed tandem to finish in '03, and he was the first U.S. finisher in '07.

[fiamme red]

is the average unit used in these events a store bought, industrial made
bicycle, or are there a fair amount of them made by the current generation
of internet builders who have embraced the french thing atmo? from where
i sit, it seems like most of the hommage (that's a french-y word) brands are
in the blogs and on flickr rather than in the first group (or similar) of finishers
in these distance events. what are you seeing at the race sites?There's usually a good number of store-bought bikes (Trek, Specialized, etc.), but a far higher percentage of lugged steel bikes, new and old, than on the typical club ride. On our fleche team in April, we had a Schwinn Paramount track bike, a Rivendell Quickbeam, a Windsor Profesional, and a Bob Jackson (we were all on fixed-gear).

The number of French-inspired bikes is still a small percentage, but growing steadily.

[e-RICHIE]

Peter Weigle, Richard Sachs and Chris Chance (of FAT CHANCE fame)
all made bikes together at Witcomb.


xxxx (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=15583&postcount=4) atmo.

[Joellogicman]

thanks, and i am not interested in derailing the thread here, but i often
wonder about the rando thing, the f'builder thing, and where the synergy
is. is the average unit used in these events a store bought, industrial made
bicycle, or are there a fair amount of them made by the current generation
of internet builders who have embraced the french thing atmo? from where
i sit, it seems like most of the hommage (that's a french-y word) brands are
in the blogs and on flickr rather than in the first group (or similar) of finishers
in these distance events. what are you seeing at the race sites?

Interestingly (to me anyway) Mike Kone says ~50% of his current Rene Herse bike orders will be ridden in the PBP.

My forthcoming Rando type bike is intended for touring now that I am transitioning from full camping loads to credit card. My builder says many of his current Rando orders are for people looking to do the same.

[Joellogicman]

I found Mariposa, found Berthoud, found Dr. Brooks' Herses and Singers, but JPW was not on the radar as a builder of bikes with generators and big front bags.

Do you still have the Mariposa?

[drewski]

Let's keep our facts straight:

I don't know who holds the PBP tandem record, but it is not Jan. He and his stoker were the first mixed tandem to finish in '03, and he was the first U.S. finisher in '07.

Sorry goonster. You are correct. Thanks for keeping sharp

http://www.randonneurs.bc.ca/pbp/stories/03_Jan_Heine.html

[Polyglot]

Mike Barry was indeed making rando style bikes up in Canada at the same time.

I worked for Mike Barry in the first half of the 80's and we built an untold number of randonneur bikes, both by Marisposa as well as others. In fact, Mike and his partner at the time Mike Brown were perhaps the prime instigators of the North American Audax movement. The audax and randonneur movement was well-established in Toronto and in other pockets throughout North America. Our shop, Bicyclesport, was also the biggest direct importer of French components, with the full range of Simplex, Maxicar, Huret, TA, Stronglight... At the time, in the early 80's, Mariposa bikes got written up in Bicycling! and other mainstream bicycle magazines, so to suggest that Jan in any way was responsible for popularizing randonneur or custom steel bikes seems laughable. There were also many mass market bikes built with racks, mudguards, lighting and other accouterments.

When I speak to the old-timers from the randonneur movement from the 70's and 80's, they all show a bit of derision when speaking of Jan and his oft-laughable positions. Randonneur bikes and components were designed for a specific market and application in mind. For the selected application, little else can come close to compare. Unfortunately, this randonnée market has always been more of a niche market and should not be looked at as an all-purpose solution for all cyclists.

[Polyglot]

Interestingly (to me anyway) Mike Kone says ~50% of his current Rene Herse bike orders will be ridden in the PBP.

Does that mean 2 or 3 bikes of his bikes will be ridden in the PBP?

[Joellogicman]

Our shop, Bicyclesport, was also the biggest direct importer of French components, with the full range of Simplex, Maxicar, Huret, TA, Stronglight...

Mike sold me some nos TA and Simplex pieces around the time he was closing shop. Probably stuff you were buying then.

At the time, in the early 80's, Mariposa bikes got written up in Bicycling! and other mainstream bicycle magazines, so to suggest that Jan in any way was responsible for popularizing randonneur or custom steel bikes seems laughable. There were also many mass market bikes built with racks, mudguards, lighting and other accouterments.

I was in college riding an old Schwinn at the time, but I do recall being at least vaguely aware of the Rando style before the buzz started this decade.

[Joellogicman]

Does that mean 2 or 3 bikes of his bikes will be ridden in the PBP?

Very likely :D

[oldpotatoe]

None of that might be news to a racer, but to an ordinary cyclist, don't you think it calls into question most of the marketing and hype of the past quarter century?

bing, bing, bing, we have a winner!!

[R2D2]

Personally I think the proof is in the pudding.
In other words the faster machines are currently deployed in the TdF.
If an older design was clearly faster it would be in widespread use.

[Joellogicman]

Personally I think the proof is in the pudding.
In other words the faster machines are currently deployed in the TdF.
If an older design was clearly faster it would be in widespread use.

From the OP's summary, the article does not argue older is faster. Rather it argues speed increases have more to do with improvements in athletic conditioning than supposed technological avancements.

[palincss]

The issue still hasn't arrived in Alexandria VA, so I haven't read the article. .Hhowever, based on the summary presented in this thread, it's abour racing bikes, not randonneuring. How'd we drift into a discussion of whether one style of bike or another is faster for brevets?

I don't think anyone ever suggested there would be such an advantage, especially not when you think about how much time can be lost at controls if you arrive when there's congestion. Anyone who has ever waited in line 20 or 30 minutes for a portolet at a big event like the Seagull Century or Bike Virginia will immediately understand what I mean...

[palincss]

Personally I think the proof is in the pudding.
In other words the faster machines are currently deployed in the TdF.
If an older design was clearly faster it would be in widespread use.

How do you figure that? Where would you go to buy one? What do you think the total annual production of all the builders making integrated randonneuring bikes adds up to, and how does that compare to the availability of racing bikes? I think you can count on the fingers of your hands the bike shops in the USA where you can actually buy an integrated randonneuring bike; compare that to the number of Trek and Specialized shops selling racing bikes.

[R2D2]

How do you figure that? Where would you go to buy one? What do you think the total annual production of all the builders making integrated randonneuring bikes adds up to, and how does that compare to the availability of racing bikes? I think you can count on the fingers of your hands the bike shops in the USA where you can actually buy an integrated randonneuring bike; compare that to the number of Trek and Specialized shops selling racing bikes.

I Rando. But my point is, a professional team/rider can get any bike they want. There are plenty of re-badged frames. So why no Rando frames or 650B tires if they are so fast.

[jlwdm]

The days of a pro getting any bike they want is long gone. It used to be easy with steel and titanium bikes with level top tubes. It is hard to disguise another frame to look like your carbon sponsor's bike. Maybe with another carbon - but still not easy.

Jeff

[jlwdm]

Let's keep our facts straight:

I don't know who holds the PBP tandem record, but it is not Jan. He and his stoker were the first mixed tandem to finish in '03, and he was the first U.S. finisher in '07.


Sounds like what you are saying is in 2003 he and his partner held the mixed tandem record.

Jeff

[learlove]

If I were still in the same racing shape I was when I was 17 to 21 I bet I would be just as fast now on my steel Dreesens as i was back then on my Cdale crit 3.0.

[michael white]

Pro riders and pro bikes are way faster than nonpro riders and nonpro bikes. If you don't believe this, whatever. . . . go train in the south of France and watch the guys whiz past as you labor up the hills. It's pretty impressive.

If you want to believe Jan Heine, fine. so what? why does this matter to anyone?

[BengeBoy]

Pro riders and pro bikes are way faster than nonpro riders and nonpro bikes. If you don't believe this, whatever. . . . go train in the south of France and watch the guys whiz past as you labor up the hills. It's pretty impressive.

If you want to believe Jan Heine, fine. so what? why does this matter to anyone?

I think Jan's point (partly) is that when a pro rider on a pro bike whizzes past you it's helpful to understand why he (or she) is so much faster than you. It's not necessarily time to drain the 401k (or what's left of it) to buy a new bike. It's time to go out and train.

When it *is* time for a new bike, consider that what's being marketed as "the same kind of bike that won the Tour de France" may not be the best bike for you.

Further, I think if you read BQ over time, he is saying this: A bike that is comfortable over long distances, can be ridden in all kinds of weather, and can carry a few pounds of extra clothing, commuting gear, or even gear for a quick overnight camping trip might be just as "fast" and comfortable over longer distances as a bike that emulates (at least in appearances) what is ridden in races.

Finally, with the time and budget available to him, he's gone out and tested this proposition, and studied the data available to him to see if modern race bikes are faster than historical race bikes.

If he has an agenda (at least that I can detect) it's to encourage riders to open up their minds to what they really need in a bike instead of emulating professional racers.

[michael white]

I think Jan's point (partly) is that when a pro rider on a pro bike whizzes past you it's helpful to understand why he (or she) is so much faster than you. It's not necessarily time to drain the 401k (or what's left of it) to buy a new bike. It's time to go out and train.

When it *is* time for a new bike, consider that what's being marketed as "the same kind of bike that won the Tour de France" may not be the best bike for you.

Further, I think if you read BQ over time, he is saying this: A bike that is comfortable over long distances, can be ridden in all kinds of weather, and can carry a few pounds of extra clothing, commuting gear, or even gear for a quick overnight camping trip might be just as "fast" and comfortable over longer distances as a bike that emulates (at least in appearances) what is ridden in races.

Finally, with the time and budget available to him, he's gone out and tested this proposition, and studied the data available to him to see if modern race bikes are faster than historical race bikes.

If he has an agenda (at least that I can detect) it's to encourage riders to open up their minds to what they really need in a bike instead of emulating professional racers.

None of this is new to me. I have always ridden long distances, and always will, and find BQ somewhat boring. Of all my bikes, all are very comfortable, and several are Treks. None are "racing" style bikes. They mostly do different things. A lot of this BQ stuff seems weird to me.

[BengeBoy]

None of this is new to me. I have always ridden long distances, and always will, and find BQ somewhat boring. Of all my bikes, all are very comfortable, and several are Treks. None are "racing" style bikes. They mostly do different things. A lot of this BQ stuff seems weird to me.
In that case, you probably don't need to hear the message. Stand around the sales floor of a busy mega bike store on a summer Saturday and eavesdrop on the sales conversation, though, and I think you would see there is a big gap between what most folks need and what the industry is sometimes dishing out. Or help a friend who is just getting started convert the CF racing bike he was sold into a practical all-weather commuter.

The bike industry has always been weird to me. Most people don't race, but everyone wants a "race" bike. No wonder the average bike only gets ridden something like 500 miles in its lifetime.

In the car industry, the dealers are savvy enough to put one sexy convertible in the showroom window so they can sell sedans and minivans. In the bike industry, they fill the sales floor with race bikes and then every customer who walks in the door gets a race bike. Or the time I walked into my local mega-dealer looking for a freewheel remover and the salesman tried to convince me to upgrade to set of Zipps that were on sale (***?).

Now I'm shocked I wrote something positive about car dealers.

[michael white]

Trends are everywhere.
But the guys at my lbs are as smart as anyone I know. They don't make a living out of hawking race bikes to people who don't need them. Like most bike shops, they sell a lot of inexpensive cruisers and kid's bikes, if you want to know. And every other genre, too. The racy bikes are in the back.

[TAW]

In that case, you probably don't need to hear the message. Stand around the sales floor of a busy mega bike store on a summer Saturday and eavesdrop on the sales conversation, though, and I think you would see there is a big gap between what most folks need and what the industry is sometimes dishing out. Or help a friend who is just getting started convert the CF racing bike he was sold into a practical all-weather commuter.

The bike industry has always been weird to me. Most people don't race, but everyone wants a "race" bike. No wonder the average bike only gets ridden something like 500 miles in its lifetime.

In the car industry, the dealers are savvy enough to put one sexy convertible in the showroom window so they can sell sedans and minivans. In the bike industry, they fill the sales floor with race bikes and then every customer who walks in the door gets a race bike. Or the time I walked into my local mega-dealer looking for a freewheel remover and the salesman tried to convince me to upgrade to set of Zipps that were on sale (***?).

Now I'm shocked I wrote something positive about car dealers.

While I'm sure that there are dealers who try to sell race bikes to people who don't need it, the truth is that a small percentage of bikes in our store and probably most bike stores are race bikes. The vast majority are mountain bikes, or comfort type bikes, and we sell more of those than anything. We try to discern what a person wants to do with their riding and match the bike to them. Most racers are savvy enough to find deals on ebay or do their own stuff, so race bikes are not the bread and butter of most stores.

People miscommunicate or have "dreams" about what they want not only when purchasing bikes, but in purchasing lots of things that they have been told they need by advertising.

[BengeBoy]

People miscommunicate or have "dreams" about what they want not only when purchasing bikes, but in purchasing lots of things that they have been told they need by advertising.

Thanks for your comments. I think I overstated by rant about bike shops in my comments just above (I guess the Internets does that to me sometimes), but it is based on real conversations, real crap that shops have tried to sell me, and real "rescues" that I have done for friends.

There are certainly some great shops, at least in my area, and I steer people toward them.

In any case, I don't think BQ's target is bike shops -- it's industry marketing/advertising that get folks wound up around what they "need to go faster." My labored car industry analogy above simply states that I think most customers know enough about what they need in a car not to be distracted by the two-seat convertible when they really need a four-door. I think newbie bike customers have more trouble finding their way unless they find the right dealer.

My opinion, not scientifically proven, though I did take a class in statistics. :)

[retrogrouchy]

Interestingly (to me anyway) Mike Kone says ~50% of his current Rene Herse bike orders will be ridden in the PBP.

My forthcoming Rando type bike is intended for touring now that I am transitioning from full camping loads to credit card. My builder says many of his current Rando orders are for people looking to do the same.

So that's, what, two Herses per year? ;)

[retrogrouchy]

Sounds like what you are saying is in 2003 he and his partner held the mixed tandem record.

Jeff

No, IIRC they missed the record by about three hours, but finished first (mixed pair) that year. Two different things....

[retrogrouchy]

In that case, you probably don't need to hear the message. Stand around the sales floor of a busy mega bike store on a summer Saturday and eavesdrop on the sales conversation, though, and I think you would see there is a big gap between what most folks need and what the industry is sometimes dishing out. Or help a friend who is just getting started convert the CF racing bike he was sold into a practical all-weather commuter.

The bike industry has always been weird to me. Most people don't race, but everyone wants a "race" bike. No wonder the average bike only gets ridden something like 500 miles in its lifetime.

In the car industry, the dealers are savvy enough to put one sexy convertible in the showroom window so they can sell sedans and minivans. In the bike industry, they fill the sales floor with race bikes and then every customer who walks in the door gets a race bike. Or the time I walked into my local mega-dealer looking for a freewheel remover and the salesman tried to convince me to upgrade to set of Zipps that were on sale (***?).

Now I'm shocked I wrote something positive about car dealers.

Really, really well-said. Thanks for having the guts to say it! :banana:

[Rueda Tropical]

Pro riders and pro bikes are way faster than nonpro riders and nonpro bikes. If you don't believe this, whatever. . . . go train in the south of France and watch the guys whiz past as you labor up the hills. It's pretty impressive.

If you want to believe Jan Heine, fine. so what? why does this matter to anyone?

Pro riders are faster then you and I because of their power output not because of their bikes. You can actually buy a "better" non UCI legal bike then the pro rides and you will still be slower.

I still haven't received this issue but Jan did an article on the effect of equipment on PBP times. The addition of aero wheels saved 1:03 hours for a rider averaging 70w (1.45% of 68.50 hours) and 21 minutes (almost 1% over 38.31 hours) for a 250w rider, according to BQ's calculations. 1 to 1.5% may not sound like much but in a stage race it would be huge. Add a reduction of weight, quicker shifting and clipless pedals and using Jan's own numbers one could see an advantage to newer technology. Small enough to make no difference at all to anyone but pro racers but perhaps very significant for pro racing.

If something might make a minutes difference over several hours that is probably enough justification for a pro to use it. All things being equal why not take any tiny advantage you can take?

[SoCalSteve]

In that case, you probably don't need to hear the message. Stand around the sales floor of a busy mega bike store on a summer Saturday and eavesdrop on the sales conversation, though, and I think you would see there is a big gap between what most folks need and what the industry is sometimes dishing out. Or help a friend who is just getting started convert the CF racing bike he was sold into a practical all-weather commuter.

The bike industry has always been weird to me. Most people don't race, but everyone wants a "race" bike. No wonder the average bike only gets ridden something like 500 miles in its lifetime.

In the car industry, the dealers are savvy enough to put one sexy convertible in the showroom window so they can sell sedans and minivans. In the bike industry, they fill the sales floor with race bikes and then every customer who walks in the door gets a race bike. Or the time I walked into my local mega-dealer looking for a freewheel remover and the salesman tried to convince me to upgrade to set of Zipps that were on sale (***?).

Now I'm shocked I wrote something positive about car dealers.

I cannot imagine EVER saying anything nice about car STEALERSHIPS. I think I'd rather swim with sharks (I'd have a better chance). I cannot imagine the training the sales employee's (and sales managers and finance guys) go through to become "lower than pond scum".

Sorry about the thread drift. Now I'm going to a car dealership and buying the first car I see at the window sticker price and all the extended warranties, gap insurance and body sealant they can sell me...

[jlwdm]

.. Or the time I walked into my local mega-dealer looking for a freewheel remover and the salesman tried to convince me to upgrade to set of Zipps that were on sale (***?)...



So how did you end up liking the Zipps. Just kidding.

Jeff

[retrogrouchy]

I cannot imagine EVER saying anything nice about car STEALERSHIPS. I think I'd rather swim with sharks (I'd have a better chance). I cannot imagine the training the sales employee's (and sales managers and finance guys) go through to become "lower than pond scum".

Sorry about the thread drift. Now I'm going to a car dealership and buying the first car I see at the window sticker price and all the extended warranties, gap insurance and body sealant they can sell me...

There are good new car salespersons, and there are bad ones, just like any other group of 'pros.'

I'll give you that the ratio of bad to good is probaly quite high in this particular case, but my wife just bought a new vehicle recently, and the 24-year-old salesman was quite straightforward and 100% honest. Her previous new car experience (in 2001 - she doesn't change vehicles often) was also quite pleasant. The one in 1995 and the one in 1986 were both horror stories, though - lies, more lies, deception, still more lies, and attempted rip-off at every single phase of the transactions. FWIW, the more recent two were for Import brands, but the two criminal ones were for an Import and a Domestic vehicle, in that chronological order, so I'm not at all saying it's an Import vs. Domestic thing. I can usually smell a rat pretty quickly now, though....

[palincss]

I Rando. But my point is, a professional team/rider can get any bike they want. There are plenty of re-badged frames. So why no Rando frames or 650B tires if they are so fast.

I wasn't aware there were professional randonneuring teams or riders. Or were you referring to professional racing teams using randonneur bicycles? If that's what you mean, I think the conditions are not identical.

Other than RAAM, are bicycle races run at night? Aren't fenders are outlawed by the same sanctioning body that sets minimum weight limits for racing bicycles? Are professional racers carrying their own supplies and repair parts, or do they have team cars and support? By comparison with the longest brevets, aren't bicycle races significantly shorter, and aren't average speeds much higher?

[R2D2]

I wasn't aware there were professional randonneuring teams or riders. Or were you referring to professional racing teams using randonneur bicycles? If that's what you mean, I think the conditions are not identical.

Other than RAAM, are bicycle races run at night? Aren't fenders are outlawed by the same sanctioning body that sets minimum weight limits for racing bicycles? Are professional racers carrying their own supplies and repair parts, or do they have team cars and support? By comparison with the longest brevets, aren't bicycle races significantly shorter, and aren't average speeds much higher?

I was just going by the title of the thread which stated modern racing bikes are not significantly faster that older machines. But not having read the article I should have probably just refrained from saying anything. Hopefully we can ride together some time and discuss until we get to the county line sprint. Peace......... PBP next year?
BTW I don't have a proper Rando frame but have morphed a Litespeed Tuscany into a nice long distance machine. I've always yearned for a Hampsten/Parlee Toursenol.

[jbay]

If memory serves, the reintroduction of Shimano long reach dual pivot brakes owes a lot to Grant as well.I don't know about Grant's involvement, but I do know that Mike Flanigan of ANT (then at Indy Fab) had a lot to do with the continued existence (as opposed to reintroduction) of those Shimano brakes.

-- John

[jbay]

I have no idea what every single JPW bike is doing, but I would love to see more (any!) of those fantastic machines used for their (presumably) intended purpose.One Weigle, at rest. (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/oL3_gsHhi0ruN_NLa8ww8w?feat=directlink)

[jbay]

Nobody is questioning whether or not he made them. The question is whether anybody besides him, you and the people at the flea markets knew about them. I was a RUSA-registered randonneur pre-'03, and was actively scouring the market for the best purpose-built bikes. I found Mariposa, found Berthoud, found Dr. Brooks' Herses and Singers, but JPW was not on the radar as a builder of bikes with generators and big front bags.My brother lives in Ireland and ordered a rando' frame from him in '99. People knew alright.

-- John

[palincss]

I don't know about Grant's involvement, but I do know that Mike Flanigan of ANT (then at Indy Fab) had a lot to do with the continued existence (as opposed to reintroduction) of those Shimano brakes.


It's a dim recollection now, but I do remember reading something either on a Riv list or in Riv Reader about those brakes having been discontinued and being reintroduced. Whether they actually left the supply chain and came back or were kept on, either way we owe a debt of gratitude to those who lobbied Shimano for their availability.

[jbay]

[...] we owe a debt of gratitude to those who lobbied Shimano for their availability.Agreed entirely.

-- John

[jbay]

I worked for Mike Barry in the first half of the 80's and we built an untold number of randonneur bikes, both by Marisposa as well as others. In fact, Mike and his partner at the time Mike Brown were perhaps the prime instigators of the North American Audax movement. [...]

When I speak to the old-timers from the randonneur movement from the 70's and 80's [...]Gilbert Anderson, of North Road Bicycle Imports (http://www.northroadbicycle.com/index.php) in Raleigh, North Carolina is another of those 70s-80s randonneurs who inspired countless people to take up long distance cycling, my wife included. He also imported various French rando' paraphernalia at the time and one of his Rene Herses won a prize at the Cirque several years ago.

Yes, we've been here before...

-- John

[e-RICHIE]

Yes, we've been here before...

-- John


mad props to jim konski atmo.
heck, he planted the big seed.

[fiamme red]

mad props to jim konski atmo.
heck, he planted the big seed.Yes, he's probably responsible more than anyone for the growth of randonneuring in the United States.

[e-RICHIE]

Yes, he's probably responsible more than anyone for the growth of randonneuring in the United States.


gets it atmo.

[fiamme red]

I worked for Mike Barry in the first half of the 80's and we built an untold number of randonneur bikes, both by Marisposa as well as others. In fact, Mike and his partner at the time Mike Brown were perhaps the prime instigators of the North American Audax movement. The audax and randonneur movement was well-established in Toronto and in other pockets throughout North America. Our shop, Bicyclesport, was also the biggest direct importer of French components, with the full range of Simplex, Maxicar, Huret, TA, Stronglight... At the time, in the early 80's, Mariposa bikes got written up in Bicycling! and other mainstream bicycle magazines, so to suggest that Jan in any way was responsible for popularizing randonneur or custom steel bikes seems laughable. There were also many mass market bikes built with racks, mudguards, lighting and other accouterments.Interesting article about the early days of Toronto Randonneurs:

http://www.randonneursontario.ca/history/heath.html

Amongst the "cognoscenti" who frequented Bicyclesport, the word was that the "two Mikes" had some thing "in the works." During the early summer of 1982 they had constructed two touring bikes the like of which most us had never seen - just heard rumours. They were built of lightweight racing tube-sets, yet had longer wheelbases, more relaxed angles and wider clearances than a racing bike. They also had custom-made front and rear narrow lightweight racks, narrow mudguards, two or three bottle mounts and a generator that, whilst riding, could be activated via a lever near the seat cluster.

We scratched our heads. What kind of ride would require the generator to be turned on in motion? Answer - Alpine tunnels...

[palincss]

mad props to jim konski atmo.
heck, he planted the big seed.

Talk about style, one Christmas in the early 1970s he sent out as a Christmas card a wonderful reprinting of the Golden Sunbeam brochure for I think 1902. I was the Mid Hudson Bicycle Club liaison with the Onandaga Bicycle Club, of which he was President, so I got one. Very detailed and thorough booklet it was, too, for a bike very much like this one: http://oldbike.wordpress.com/1919-golden-sunbeam-gents-bicycle/


http://oldbike.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/1919-golden-sunbeam8.jpg?w=470&h=291

[retrogrouchy]

In the latest issue of Bicycle Quarterly, which just arrived yesterday, they test several new racing bikes (including a Trek Madone) and then explore whether they can find evidence to suggest that improvements in cycling technology have improved racing speeds.

Their conclusion: "There is no evidence that racing bikes have become significantly faster during the last 40 years."

Their methodology is interesting: they examine actual racing speeds from from the Tour de France over the last 100 years. They also examine speeds from the Milan-San Remo race, which has been run on the same course for 100 years.

Then, as a "control," they tracked down the best speeds for running the 5k and 10k on track for each year over the last 100 years.

The theory is that the top men's running speeds will show the trend of how much general athletic performance has improved in the last 100 years, due to improvements in diet, training, specialization of athletes, etc.. The hypothesis is that if bike technology has led to faster real-world cycling speeds, the cyclists' average racing speeds would have improved faster than running speeds.

Their conclusion: almost all improvements in cycling speeds is attributable to general improvements in athletic performance (cycling speeds have not risen faster than running speeds). [for stats geeks, the correlation was 88%; they attribute the remaining unexplained variation to general variability]

They examine long-term speed trends during each period of the Tour's history -- looking at whether improvements in road surfaces, frame technology, aerodynamics in TT bikes, etc. have really helped. They also look at a couple of periods when the TdF's speeds decreased -- the 20's (hypothesis: loss of a generation of racers to WWI) and since 2005 (hypothesis: stricter doping controls).

Conclusion: "There is no evidence that advances in cycling technology since WW II have led to faster racing speeds....this does not preclude that modern bicycles are slightly faster than traditional ones, but the effect clearly is too small to detect....this means that the best recipe for riding faster is training harder and smarter, rather than trying to buy speed with the latest bicycle technology."

http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/currentissue.html

Some of you who subscribe to BQ may already be familiar with editor Jan Heine's work over the years to examine the course of modern cycling development. The underlying premise of a lot of the BQ articles is that in real world applications a lot of modern "racing" technology (e.g., super-narrow tires) does not lead to faster times or better experiences for most cycling enthusiasts (even serious ones).


I have already hidden this issue from my wife, who was just wondering the other day why I put a new Campy group on my old steel racing frame...

Fourteen days after you have your BQ, I still ain't seen mine yet. Jan, what the....?

[retrogrouchy]

Fourteen days after you have your BQ, I still ain't seen mine yet. Jan, what the....?

6/27 Update:

I spoke with Jan, and for some reason, the East Coasters have long since received their latest copies, but we po' Midwesterners haven't. An atypical USPS screw-up perhaps, which I fear we may now start seeing from time to time, as they try desperately to cut costs. Bummer.

Can other 'flyover state' folks verify this?

[rnhood]

I don't know, were they all mailed out at the same time and, via first class? If not then that explains the discrepancy.

[retrogrouchy]

I don't know, were they all mailed out at the same time and, via first class? If not then that explains the discrepancy.

I think the answer is yes and no, probably approximately all at once but by Media Mail or FCM, and either mode can really vary in delivery time, if we're talking long distances. Somewhere, a bundle of BQs for us unwashed Midwesterners is stuck in a USPS depot, I guess.... Bah humbug. :rolleyes:

[Louis]

Having read the hullabaloo across the hall about the BQ Pegoretti review I have to wonder about this so-called "study." I hope they were a bit more rigorous than Jan's choice of a test ride bike.

[BengeBoy]

Having read the hullabaloo across the hall about the BQ Pegoretti review I have to wonder about this so-called "study." I hope they were a bit more rigorous than Jan's choice of a test ride bike.

:argue:

All in all, a pretty entertaining issue!

[Louis]

:argue:

All in all, a pretty entertaining issue!

I think Jan has some ex-plane-ing to do :bike:

[Charles M]

This whole damn thing is silly.


Being a fan of old tech and older bikes gives folks the ability to change most laws of physics.


And why not toss in a word like "significantly" and then play around in that massive grey area and toss in a few off base guesses...



It's no longer planing... It's warping. The ability of some materials to skirt gravity and resist forces...

[dancinkozmo]

Having read the hullabaloo across the hall about the BQ Pegoretti review I have to wonder about this so-called "study." I hope they were a bit more rigorous than Jan's choice of a test ride bike.

its fun seeing them all work themselves into a tizzy when someone dares to criticize the work of one of their crew .. :)

[retrogrouchy]

Having read the hullabaloo across the hall about the BQ Pegoretti review I have to wonder about this so-called "study." I hope they were a bit more rigorous than Jan's choice of a test ride bike.

Jan sure got their knickers to go all bunched up and everything over there, huh? More power to the sycophants. :rolleyes:

Gotta respect him for joining the discussion after multiple profanity-spewings in his direction....

(Note to self: never start every other word with a 'f' in a long post on the Innernets). ;)

[BengeBoy]

Well, they seem to have locked the thread across the hall. I guess it was fun while it lasted.

Several notable things:

1. some of the profanity-laced invective directed at Jan seemed more than a little over the top.

2. buried beneath the emotion, there was some actually informative back-and-forth going on; for awhile I thought a useful debate might break out.

3. good for Jan for showing up.

My own view is that the reviews of the Trek Madone and the Pegoretti were not the most interesting part of this issue of BQ (I think the reviews of the kids' bikes were more informative, actually). Still the most interesting article to me was the article about race-bike performance, which is why I started this thread.

As an uninformed (perhaps even naive) but interested consumer of all this content I come away thinking that Jan is a step or two ahead of his critics. It seems to me that the debate around some of the findings of BQ has always been, "If what BQ is saying is right, why don't racers ride bikes like that?" Aside from the question of whether BQ did a good job testing the Pegoretti, that's what the debate across the hall devolved into as well.

But the study of TdF racing times is saying, "If modern cycling technology is better, why aren't bikes getting faster?"

Maybe someday we will know who is "right," but I still think there is more provocative content in one issue of BQ than in a year of Buycycling.

[fiamme red]

Having read the hullabaloo across the hall about the BQ Pegoretti review I have to wonder about this so-called "study." I hope they were a bit more rigorous than Jan's choice of a test ride bike.Just looked in "across the hall," and found some gems from "An Educated Review of a Love #3" (http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/f2/educated-review-love-3-a-15864.html) that reads like one of Bike Snob's parodies. But the people who replied over there seem to take it seriously. :rolleyes:

"By the time I got to the top I found myself dreaming of the immaculate birth of my bicycle and sipping wine with Dario himself while enjoying everything Italy had to offer, reading the quotes on my Love and thinking about some of my similar despise for Pinarello."

Now that was funny. :D

"The Flats:
At this point I noticed my energy starting to dwindle, slight amounts of lactic acid in my legs and a lingering headache from my pedal fest up to heaven. I still pushed on hard. I was able to crank out a few 40+ sprint efforts and felt the stableness of the bike underneath me. I could feel the power being transformed through the pavement. Being a large sprinter this is where a lot of complaints come from me; if a bike can't take my 2000watts then it's worthless to me. To many bikes are flimsy to my weight and feel unsafe when you lay down the hammer. The Love #3 is a stable platform. No wonder Boonen rode a Marcelo to Tour de France sprint victory. Those thick dropouts make you feel like a champ."

Theo Bos, is that you? :p

If this guy can put out 2,000 watts, why isn't he a pro competing in the world track sprint championships? And 40+ (mph, I assume) solo sprint efforts on the flats after a hard climb, with his energy starting to dwindle? Not possible, unless there's a strong tailwind.

(I suspect the review is tongue-in-cheek.)

Jan Heine may sometimes come to erroneous or even absurd conclusions (as in the sidebar about professional descending), but he's usually interesting and thought-provoking, even if you disagree with him. I will continue to subscribe to BQ, while I wouldn't read the reviews in Bicycling if I got it for free.

[zap]

Not locked......it went to wiki world.

[fourflys]

it does say the guy was/is a Cat 1.... but you're right, he does use a lot of, um, hyperbole... :D

just sayin'

[mschol17]

I think the bicycle speed article has some major problems in it's initial assumptions. Here are a few of my questions.

I would agree that 5k/10k times are a valid source of "human fitness" measurement, but is the average speed of the TdF winner the analogous measurement in cycling? Runners are going pretty much all out for the fastest 5/10k of the year, and it's obvious that racers aren't going all out in the TdF. It seems to me something like individual time trial speed, top sprint speed, or some track event would be much more similar to a 5k/10k. I'm not sure if there's data on this...

Secondly, I think the article glosses over the aerodynamic v squared issue. It gets complicated with pack riding, but a model of wattage vs. speed could be easily calculated. Then, the actual data could be compared not to a linear line of "fitness", but to the projected increase in speed from a linear increase in wattage. Again, this issue might be more clearly seen in TT or track settings.

Finally, one way to test your theory is to see if known events show up beyond the noise. The introduction of EPO into the peloton is a known event. However, this doesn't seem to show up in the TdF ave finish speed. That should make one question whether ave finish speed is a valid metric. EPO is known to increase climbing speed, and help more of the average riders keep up with the fastest riders. So, maybe hill climb times or standard deviation of finishing speeds is important.

The main problem I have is that Jan takes data that doesn't seem to have a good signal to noise ratio and uses that as evidence that his theories about bicycle geo and stiffness are correct. For example, the Procycling test showed that riders put out 3% more wattage on the modern bike and went 3% faster on the modern bike However, Analytic Cycling says they should be going 5% faster all things being equal. Jan uses this to validate his planing theories. More likely the test error bars are so huge that there is no relationship to be drawn at all. Science without error bars is not science.

[SamIAm]

I think the bicycle speed article has some major problems in it's initial assumptions. Here are a few of my questions.

I would agree that 5k/10k times are a valid source of "human fitness" measurement, but is the average speed of the TdF winner the analogous measurement in cycling? Runners are going pretty much all out for the fastest 5/10k of the year, and it's obvious that racers aren't going all out in the TdF. It seems to me something like individual time trial speed, top sprint speed, or some track event would be much more similar to a 5k/10k. I'm not sure if there's data on this...

Secondly, I think the article glosses over the aerodynamic v squared issue. It gets complicated with pack riding, but a model of wattage vs. speed could be easily calculated. Then, the actual data could be compared not to a linear line of "fitness", but to the projected increase in speed from a linear increase in wattage. Again, this issue might be more clearly seen in TT or track settings.

Finally, one way to test your theory is to see if known events show up beyond the noise. The introduction of EPO into the peloton is a known event. However, this doesn't seem to show up in the TdF ave finish speed. That should make one question whether ave finish speed is a valid metric. EPO is known to increase climbing speed, and help more of the average riders keep up with the fastest riders. So, maybe hill climb times or standard deviation of finishing speeds is important.

The main problem I have is that Jan takes data that doesn't seem to have a good signal to noise ratio and uses that as evidence that his theories about bicycle geo and stiffness are correct. For example, the Procycling test showed that riders put out 3% more wattage on the modern bike and went 3% faster on the modern bike However, Analytic Cycling says they should be going 5% faster all things being equal. Jan uses this to validate his planing theories. More likely the test error bars are so huge that there is no relationship to be drawn at all. Science without error bars is not science.

These are all excellent points, but I applaud Jan for putting it out there and starting the discussion. That is much of what I see in the value of BQ. I don't necessarily take it as pure science, but it does get me thinking about things that weren't on my radar before picking it up.

[SamIAm]

1. some of the profanity-laced invective directed at Jan seemed more than a little over the top.



I thought the conduct over there was disgraceful for the most part, even after Jan had the stones to join such a one sided hate fest.

Peter Weigle told me one time, after spending some time riding with Jan out in Seattle, Jan is one helluva rider! I keep that in mind when I read his reviews, they are not gospel to me, but they do merit consideration.

[mschol17]

I don't have anything against Jan, and I'm a BQ subscriber. However, if you're going to print a magazine and present data then you need to do so correctly. Scientific method and all that.

I don't think it's brave that he defends his reviews; that's his job. He publishes a magazine and should stand by what he writes, good or bad.

Again, I think the points I raise invalidate any conclusions of Jan's study on bicycle technology impacting speed. I welcome others' thoughts.

[rpm]

I don't think Jan has fully articulated what he thinks a good racing bike should be like. Awhile ago he tested a 1960's Cinelli and he liked it a lot. That bike had a long wheelbase and a trail of about 50.

I'd like to see him do what Grant Peterson has done with his Rodeo and collaborate with a builder to produce his idea of a racing bike.

If he did that, I wonder if that bike might not be that much different from an e-richie bike. Richard's bikes are lugged steel with level top tubes and longer than average fork rakes, which probably means they have somewhat lower than average trail figures. Jan's idea of a race bike might be fairly similar.

[pdmtong]

I said it there and I'll say it here. the reviewer sees the Peg through his own lens. Doesn't make him right. Doesn't make the reader right. He's entitled to his opinion and it's up to the reader to interpret accordingly.

Anyone considering a $5k+ purchases like this has done their homework on Dario and should be able to put Jan's comments into perspective.

The extreme response was just that - extreme. yeesh. people need to un-wind a bit

[retrogrouchy]

Well, they seem to have locked the thread across the hall. I guess it was fun while it lasted.

Several notable things:

1. some of the profanity-laced invective directed at Jan seemed more than a little over the top.

2. buried beneath the emotion, there was some actually informative back-and-forth going on; for awhile I thought a useful debate might break out.

3. good for Jan for showing up.

My own view is that the reviews of the Trek Madone and the Pegoretti were not the most interesting part of this issue of BQ (I think the reviews of the kids' bikes were more informative, actually). Still the most interesting article to me was the article about race-bike performance, which is why I started this thread.

As an uninformed (perhaps even naive) but interested consumer of all this content I come away thinking that Jan is a step or two ahead of his critics. It seems to me that the debate around some of the findings of BQ has always been, "If what BQ is saying is right, why don't racers ride bikes like that?" Aside from the question of whether BQ did a good job testing the Pegoretti, that's what the debate across the hall devolved into as well.

But the study of TdF racing times is saying, "If modern cycling technology is better, why aren't bikes getting faster?"

Maybe someday we will know who is "right," but I still think there is more provocative content in one issue of BQ than in a year of Buycycling.

+1

[retrogrouchy]

I don't think Jan has fully articulated what he thinks a good racing bike should be like. Awhile ago he tested a 1960's Cinelli and he liked it a lot. That bike had a long wheelbase and a trail of about 50.

I'd like to see him do what Grant Peterson has done with his Roadeo and collaborate with a builder to produce his idea of a racing bike.

If he did that, I wonder if that bike might not be that much different from an e-richie bike. Richard's bikes are lugged steel with level top tubes and longer than average fork rakes, which probably means they have somewhat lower than average trail figures. Jan's idea of a race bike might be fairly similar.

Now that is a very interesting thought!

Jan, how 'bout it? 'Everyone' has their own brand of lugged steel now, why not you? (I'm serious).

I'm not sure the Roadeo is considered a 'racing' bike, but that's a minor point.

[fourflys]

I'm not sure the Roadeo is considered a 'racing' bike, but that's a minor point.

or that it was Grant's idea or even desire to make... I believe Grant had it made at Mark's request who likes fast road rides and races at times... I'm pretty if it weren't for Mark, Grant would just keep making country bikes....

I think the Roadeo has some real potential, I just HATE the name... ;)

[rockdude]

I typically train on my old 2001 Serotta Ti Legend but today I broke out my new 2008 Peg Love #3 which typically only get ridden on very special occasions. I already knew the Love #3 was the best handling bike I have ever ridden but today I proved that modern bikes are faster than old bikes. I did a sprint workout and the power number were the best I have ever done and I did them on a Modern Peg Love #3... Jan and I see the world differently.

[SamIAm]

I don't have anything against Jan, and I'm a BQ subscriber. However, if you're going to print a magazine and present data then you need to do so correctly. Scientific method and all that.

I don't think it's brave that he defends his reviews; that's his job. He publishes a magazine and should stand by what he writes, good or bad.

Again, I think the points I raise invalidate any conclusions of Jan's study on bicycle technology impacting speed. I welcome others' thoughts.

I did not mean to imply that he was brave to defend his findings, but that he was brave to defend it in such a hostile environment.

I tend to buy and probably drink too much wine and if you are into that sort of thing, there is always some debate on whether wine should be tasted blind or not. Some, including myself, would argue that seeing the label on a bottle of Lafite is going to influence the reviewer at some level and similarly seeing the label on a bottle of Yellow Dog will pull the review in a different direction even if it contained the same wine as in the bottle of Lafite. I look at this Love #3 business in a similar way, Jan saw the Pegoretti name as Yellow Dog and the Pego-lovers see it as Lafite and it's neither, just another aluminum bike, maybe a Clos Du Bois? There is no science here, just preference and prejudice in both directions.

[retrogrouchy]

or that it was Grant's idea or even desire to make... I believe Grant had it made at Mark's request who likes fast road rides and races at times... I'm pretty if it weren't for Mark, Grant would just keep making country bikes....

I think the Roadeo has some real potential, I just HATE the name... ;)

Ditto on that name thing. Hokey....

[fiamme red]

I typically train on my old 2001 Serotta Ti Legend but today I broke out my new 2008 Peg Love #3 which typically only get ridden on very special occasions. I already knew the Love #3 was the best handling bike I have ever ridden but today I proved that modern bikes are faster than old bikes. I did a sprint workout and the power number were the best I have ever done and I did them on a Modern Peg Love #3... Jan and I see the world differently.What color is your Pegoretti? If it's red, that would be enough to explain why it's faster.

[SamIAm]

Now that is a very interesting thought!

Jan, how 'bout it? 'Everyone' has their own brand of lugged steel now, why not you? (I'm serious).

I'm not sure the Roadeo is considered a 'racing' bike, but that's a minor point.

I actually really like this idea. I have long wanted to put some of Jan's theories on bike design into practice.

[michael white]

I said it there and I'll say it here. the reviewer sees the Peg through his own lens. Doesn't make him right. Doesn't make the reader right. He's entitled to his opinion and it's up to the reader to interpret accordingly.

Anyone considering a $5k+ purchases like this has done their homework on Dario and should be able to put Jan's comments into perspective.

The extreme response was just that - extreme. yeesh. people need to un-wind a bit

I see nothing to be gained for BQ to review the Peg. Everyone already knows how he feels about race bikes, so he could've written the same review without riding the bike. To make matters worse, he picks the most esoteric and expensive aluminum bike, most likely, in the world. The sort of bike that none of his readers would ever in a million years buy, and mostly will never even see. Bikes like that aren't for toodling around; they're for one thing only, and that thing (hard fast organized racing at the highest levels) wasn't in the BQ purview and has nothing whatsoever to do with the BQ readership. The setup was so willfully pigheaded (including the severe fit issue), it was like a SNL skit. Why not see how Eskimo snowshoes work in the Boston Marathon? Or hey, let's go skiing in scuba gear, and collect our data! What possible good could come of that, unless it's for laughs?

Obviously, it wasn't for laughs, and unfortunately I can't see it as a genuine review in good faith. This is what, in most walks of life, you'd call an example of "poor judgment" in the dept. meeting on Monday. The clamor seems predictable, and the Jerk doesn't call himself that for no reason. Still, I liked reading the thread a lot; I felt some of the brightest people in the industry were willing to show their hand and ask real questions, and it was as much fun as a train wreck could possibly be.

best,
mw

[retrogrouchy]

I typically train on my old 2001 Serotta Ti Legend but today I broke out my new 2008 Peg Love #3 which typically only get ridden on very special occasions. I already knew the Love #3 was the best handling bike I have ever ridden but today I proved that modern bikes are faster than old bikes. I did a sprint workout and the power number were the best I have ever done and I did them on a Modern Peg Love #3... Jan and I see the world differently.

Awesome. Start a glossy magazine, and document and publish that. Good luck. :banana:

[fiamme red]

Bikes like that aren't for toodling around; they're for one thing only, and that thing (hard fast organized racing at the highest levels) wasn't in the BQ purview and has nothing whatsoever to do with the BQ readership.I don't see any bikes with very long headtube extensions raced at the highest levels. Just sayin'.

[michael white]

I don't see any bikes with very long headtube extensions raced at the highest levels. Just sayin'.

if what you're describing is the Love, then your statement makes no sense whatsoever, as it obviously is raced at the highest levels. Right? That's not an insult, just a clear matter of record.

[retrogrouchy]

I actually really like this idea. I have long wanted to put some of Jan's theories on bike design into practice.

It's pretty easy to do, really (but mainly with used vintage framesets, thus far, which are plentiful, or with something fabulous but mega-expensive, like a Weigle Randonneuse, or a Goodrich, or whatever).

If you look at lots of vintage steel frame designs from, say, 1950 to the present* (or even some of the 'non-racing' modern ones) there are a lot of dimensions that really don't move around all that much. On a 700C road bike, for example, BB drop has been 70-80 mm for a very long time, with about 75 being by far the most commonly-seen value. Angles don't really move that much either: 72-74 degrees, depending on frame size, other geometry values, and intended use, generally. Fork rakes are maybe 40-60 mm, but the vast majority of them fall in between 45 and 55 mm. Jan likes front-load bikes, so that dictates a certain range of rake and trail that is not exactly the same as that for a rear-loading bike (or a non-loading one!), basically.

Front centers? 58-62 cm., for the most part, but more like 61-62 if you want big tires, fenders, and no TCO. Brake reach? 50-55 mm., for the most part. Use 55 if you want more room for more options in the tire/fender department. This isn't rocket science, more like close consideration of important details, but I think another key ingredient in the "BQ frame design philosophy," for lack of a better term, is non-oversized tubing of about .8/.5/.8 thicknesses in the main tubes. Most current oversized lugged steel frames have tubes that are too thick-walled, imo, and are therefore too heavy and sluggish. The same goes for some price-point non-oversized ones.

Simple, no? :D

* and one place (but certainly not the only place) to gather up that kind of information is in old issues of BQ.

[retrogrouchy]

if what you're describing is the Love, then your statement makes no sense whatsoever, as it obviously is raced at the highest levels. Right? That's not an insult, just a clear matter of record.

Like, which levels, for example? Haven't seen many used in Le Tour. Remember, if it ain't used in Le Tour, it's no good!

[fiamme red]

if what you're describing is the Love, then your statement makes no sense whatsoever, as it obviously is raced at the highest levels. Right? That's not an insult, just a clear matter of record.If there are professional teams that ride Pegoretti Love #3 frames, I plead ignorance, since I don't keep up with that sort of thing.

The one in the review, with its monstrous headtube extension, didn't look like a typical racing frame. You'll say that the headtube can be cut... sure, but if the Love #3 is mainly meant for racing at the highest levels, why would the long extension be there in the first place?

[michael white]

It's not exactly an extension, but a dropped top tube. This has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. I am not a Pegoretti owner, I am only a bike nut like most everyone in these parts. Smaller builders seldom field Grand Tour teams, as you might know, which might help explain why Colnago didn't even have a team last year, as I recall. The Love 3 is a true race bike, though. Here's the example Dario himself provided this morning of a major win on a world stage.

Ultracycling: XXAlps Extreme (2005)

[retrogrouchy]

It's not exactly an extension, but a dropped top tube. This has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. I am not a Pegoretti owner, I am only a bike nut like most everyone in these parts. Smaller builders seldom field Grand Tour teams, as you might know, which might help explain why Colnago didn't even have a team last year, as I recall. The Love 3 is a true race bike, though. Here's the example Dario himself provided this morning of a major win on a world stage.

Ultracycling: XXAlps Extreme (2005)

I'm not familiar with that particular event. Does it involve Dos Equis beer? Got anything other than that?

[Lifelover]

It's not exactly an extension, but a dropped top tube.


This is one reason why folk who have not drank from the Peg Cool Aid don't take comments from those who have seriously.

For every other builder in the world it's a heat tube extension, but for Dario it is something else.

The over the top defense for criticism of any thing Dario does seems unnatural and unhealthy.

It's just a freakin frame. Some people will like it and some won't.


..... Bikes like that aren't for toodling around; they're for one thing only, and that thing (hard fast organized racing at the highest levels) ...


This opinion is completely at odds with what Jerk and e-rich have said repeatedly. ATJO, a good race bike is simply a good bike, period.

[Lifelover]

I'm not familiar with that particular event. Does it involve Dos Equis beer? Got anything other than that?

He wouldn't be afraid to show his feminine side, if he had on!

[michael white]

I'm not familiar with that particular event. Does it involve Dos Equis beer? Got anything other than that?

No I don't have the Pegoretti palmares in the back of my head but you can look it up.

[fiamme red]

It's not exactly an extension, but a dropped top tube. This has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. I am not a Pegoretti owner, I am only a bike nut like most everyone in these parts. Smaller builders seldom field Grand Tour teams, as you might know, which might help explain why Colnago didn't even have a team last year, as I recall. The Love 3 is a true race bike, though. Here's the example Dario himself provided this morning of a major win on a world stage.

Ultracycling: XXAlps Extreme (2005)That race is of the RAAM sort, with low maximum power outputs, not really testing the bike's capacity in something like a peloton sprint.

But never mind: I'm not saying that a Love #3, set up properly, wouldn't be a perfectly adequate bike for racing at the highest levels. But the average owner of a Love #3 isn't racing it at the highest levels, or indeed at any level, any more than the average owner of a Serotta HSG is.

[pdmtong]

I see nothing to be gained for BQ to review the Peg. Everyone already knows how he feels about race bikes, so he could've written the same review without riding the bike. To make matters worse, he picks the most esoteric and expensive aluminum bike, most likely, in the world. The sort of bike that none of his readers would ever in a million years buy, and mostly will never even see. Bikes like that aren't for toodling around; they're for one thing only, and that thing (hard fast organized racing at the highest levels) wasn't in the BQ purview and has nothing whatsoever to do with the BQ readership. The setup was so willfully pigheaded (including the severe fit issue), it was like a SNL skit. Why not see how Eskimo snowshoes work in the Boston Marathon? Or hey, let's go skiing in scuba gear, and collect our data! What possible good could come of that, unless it's for laughs?

Obviously, it wasn't for laughs, and unfortunately I can't see it as a genuine review in good faith. This is what, in most walks of life, you'd call an example of "poor judgment" in the dept. meeting on Monday. The clamor seems predictable, and the Jerk doesn't call himself that for no reason. Still, I liked reading the thread a lot; I felt some of the brightest people in the industry were willing to show their hand and ask real questions, and it was as much fun as a train wreck could possibly be. best, mw

bingo! any "enthusiast" would see the tea leaves and take the article for what it is (or isn't) I too loved reading the insights and real questions, but it was pretty clear from the start the conversation could only go south.

As for the dropped TT on most Peg's, is the design rationale for that described somewhere? I know it's not a HT extension, but never read the background on the design choice.

[michael white]

This is one reason why folk who have not drank from the Peg Cool Aid don't take comments from those who have seriously.

For every other builder in the world it's a heat tube extension, but for Dario it is something else.

The over the top defense for criticism of any thing Dario does seems unnatural and unhealthy.

It's just a freakin frame. Some people will like it and some won't.





This opinion is completely at odds with what Jerk and e-rich have said repeatedly. ATJO, a good race bike is simply a good bike, period.

yeah, there's a lot of truth in that too, of course, since a bike that fits should be good for any athletic riding, but obviously a lot of people don't agree.

[retrogrouchy]

That race is of the RAAM sort, with low maximum power outputs, not really testing the bike's capacity in something like a peloton sprint.

But never mind: I'm not saying that a Love #3, set up properly, wouldn't be a perfectly adequate bike for racing at the highest levels. But the average owner of the Love #3 isn't racing it at the highest levels, or indeed at any level, any more than the average owner of a Serotta HSG is.

+1.

[michael white]

bingo! any "enthusiast" would see the tea leaves and take the article for what it is (or isn't) I too loved reading the insights and real questions, but it was pretty clear from the start the conversation could only go south.

As for the dropped TT on most Peg's, is the design rationale for that described somewhere? I know it's not a HT extension, but never read the background on the design choice.

You can go to the locked thread and it's covered there. As I understand it, the intent was to keep top tube level rather than sloped, as is common with most modern bikes. To keep it level, while still putting the stem where they wanted it, they had to drop the top tube. As Jerk points out, they do, as well, cut a lot of those head tubes to order. Personally I'd rather err on the too-long side, myself. Finally, if you look at all the Love 3's posted in these threads, you'll see that they are all set up aggressively despite the head tube, with plenty of bar drop, which is how most racer types like it.

[rpm]

I actually really like this idea. I have long wanted to put some of Jan's theories on bike design into practice.

Sam--

Why don't you work with Jan and Jeff Lyon and have one made for you?
http://www.lyonsport.com/

I think Jeff is the sort of builder you seem to like--quietly competent and a bit under the radar. He's also built bikes for Jan before.

[EDS]

I'm not familiar with that particular event. Does it involve Dos Equis beer? Got anything other than that?

The Nerac pro team - U.S. domestic team - which was in existence in the 2005-2007 time period had Love 3's as team bikes at some point.

[sg8357]

I actually really like this idea. I have long wanted to put some of Jan's theories on bike design into practice.

http://www.renehersebicycles.com/Randonneur%20bikes.htm

700c or de Gaulle era 650b for the PBP re-enactor.

[retrogrouchy]

The Nerac pro team - U.S. domestic team - which was in existence in the 2005-2007 time period had Love 3's as team bikes at some point.

So five years ago they were somewhat used in non-European pro. racing, plus RAAM-style events? Looks like the market moved on since then, perhaps?

I'm a steel guy, but isn't aluminum so 'last-decade' as a frame material in the mainstream marketplace?

[retrogrouchy]

Sam--

Why don't you work with Jan and Jeff Lyon and have one made for you?
http://www.lyonsport.com/

I think Jeff is the sort of builder you seem to like--quietly competent and a bit under the radar. He's also built bikes for Jan before.

+1. Sounds like an excellent recommendation. Probably very good value for the money, as well.

[sg8357]

So five years ago they were somewhat used in non-European pro. racing, plus RAAM-style events? Looks like the market moved on since then, perhaps?

I'm a steel guy, but isn't aluminum so 'last-decade' as a frame material in the mainstream marketplace?

Yes, there is a large community of Mitterrand era bike re-enactors who
ride aluminum bikes. :)

[retrogrouchy]

Yes, there is a large community of Mitterrand era bike re-enactors who
ride aluminum bikes. :)

I have a 1950s track bike, that I purchased in France, that has "FM" painted onto each rim. I tell folks that a prior owner was Mitterand.... Hey, it's sorta possible! ;)

[michael white]

+1. Sounds like an excellent recommendation. Probably very good value for the money, as well.

I used to live in Northern CA, near the Oregon border, and got to see a lot of Jeff's bikes. There's something really stalwart and rugged about them . . . and they're so inexpensive, I think people assume they can't be as good as they are.

[michael white]

The Nerac pro team - U.S. domestic team - which was in existence in the 2005-2007 time period had Love 3's as team bikes at some point.

Much of Dario's work in the pro peloton was as a builder for Giordana, Indurain and co. and the five TDF victories

He likes steel, especially, and counsels buyers not to buy the Love unless they're really going to race it. If they're not going to really race, he'd rather you get the Duende.

[retrogrouchy]

Much of Dario's work in the pro peloton was as a builder for Giordana, Indurain and co. and the five TDF victories

He likes steel, especially, and counsels buyers not to buy the Love unless they're really going to race it. If they're not going to really race, he'd rather you get the Duende.

Are you a consultant to Mr. Pegoretti? :cool:

[EDS]

So five years ago they were somewhat used in non-European pro. racing, plus RAAM-style events? Looks like the market moved on since then, perhaps?

I'm a steel guy, but isn't aluminum so 'last-decade' as a frame material in the mainstream marketplace?

Aluminum certaintly isn't "last-decade" as far as amateur racing in the U.S. currently. I know a number of teams locally ride aluminum Cannondales or aluminum Spookys. Alot of aluminum cervelos, giants and the like around too.

Carbon definitely dominiates the pro peloton (both in Europe and in the U.S.), but a number of aluminum bikes still exist in the european pro peloton in 2010 - BMC uses a bike that is a mix of aluminum and carbon (though they also have an all carbon bike they use), Vacansoleil rides aluminum Batavus bikes. In the U.S., I believe domestic professional team Mountain Khakis ride aluminum bikes.

[mschol17]

So five years ago they were somewhat used in non-European pro. racing, plus RAAM-style events? Looks like the market moved on since then, perhaps?

I'm a steel guy, but isn't aluminum so 'last-decade' as a frame material in the mainstream marketplace?

It's not aluminum it's scandium.

Above Category Racing uses both Love #3 and Marcelos (steel). There's no way a 3 man shop could sponsor a pro tour team. Pro tour teams ride what their sponsors give them.

The dropped top tube is to stiffen up the main triangle. He did this on Indurain's bikes back in the very beginning of tig welded bikes in the peloton.

That bike that Jan rode was a 60 cm. If you measure the virtual tt, where the tt would go on a non-dropped frame, it would be 58.5 cm. Jan rode a race bike with 2 cm of drop and a 10 cm stem. His contact points might have been "good enough" (even though his bars were 40mm too high), but where he was in relation to the wheels was not optimal. Therefore, any conclusions he reached about the handling of the bike are completely invalid. Not only that, but he didn't just say, "I didn't like the way it handled." He basically said, "Pegoretti's are more about the name and the story than the bike." That's more insulting and naive than anything anyone said in the thread.

[michael white]

Are you a consultant to Mr. Pegoretti? :cool:

no, I have been following his work for years. I like to look at it, I like to read interviews etc. Basically I like bikes.

Why do you ask?

[zap]

snip

It's not aluminum it's scandium.



Bicycle tubes marketed by some as scandium is in fact an al alloy with less than 1% scandium.

[retrogrouchy]

Aluminum certaintly isn't "last-decade" as far as amateur racing in the U.S. currently. I know a number of teams locally ride aluminum Cannondales or aluminum Spookys. Alot of aluminum cervelos, giants and the like around too.

Carbon definitely dominiates the pro peloton (both in Europe and in the U.S.), but a number of aluminum bikes still exist in the european pro peloton in 2010 - BMC uses a bike that is a mix of aluminum and carbon (though they also have an all carbon bike they use), Vacansoleil rides aluminum Batavus bikes. In the U.S., I believe domestic professional team Mountain Khakis ride aluminum bikes.

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment. :rolleyes:

[retrogrouchy]

no, I have been following his work for years. I like to look at it, I like to read interviews etc. Basically I like bikes.

Why do you ask?

Just curious. So do you aspire to owning one of his frames? I am curious as to your motivation in this discussion.

FWIW, I just wish more folks would do their own thinking, in general. It's kind of a problem we seem to have a lot of in the USA lately (a lack of individual thought).

My motivation is that I don't like cults, or cultish thinking.

[fiamme red]

He basically said, "Pegoretti's are more about the name and the story than the bike." That's more insulting and naive than anything anyone said in the thread.Well, when you consider that a Love #3 costs $3,400 (far more than similar stock or custom aluminum frames that perform just as well), that's true, in a way.

[mschol17]

Well, when you consider that a Love #3 costs $3,400 (far more than similar stock or custom aluminum frames that perform just as well), that's true, in a way.

It's the claim that they perform just as well that Jan's "review" can't possibly back up.

[fiamme red]

It's the claim that they perform just as well that Jan's "review" can't possibly back up.Setting aside Jan's review (which I admit that I skimmed and didn't read thoroughly), I don't think anyone will claim that a racer on a Love #3 has an inherent advantage, e.g., over one on a CAAD9 (all other things being equal).

[michael white]

[QUOTE=retrogrouchy

My motivation is that I don't like cults, or cultish thinking.[/QUOTE]

That makes two of us.

Also, as a writer, I take bad writing/intellectual dishonesty pretty seriously.

[Birddog]

Bicycle tubes marketed by some as scandium is in fact an al alloy with less than 1% scandium.

They should call it Scantium.

[Elefantino]

They should call it Scantium.
Scamium?

[retrogrouchy]

That makes two of us.

Also, as a writer, I take bad writing/intellectual dishonesty pretty seriously.

Then you must really be p-o'ed at some of the drivel that has spewed forth on VSalon towards Jan lately. I presume everyone has seen the new 'let's make fun of Jan' thread over there? Not surprising.... :rolleyes:

[Joellogicman]

Heine touched briefly on something I have pondered from time to time.

He correctly points out that in the world of street motorcycle racing, tires are wide and use relatively low air pressure. Mirror opposite from bicycle racing standards.

Admittedly not an engineer, I have wondered why this should be so.

Race motorcycles, of course, put a lot more power to the tires than bicycle. Presumably the center of gravity is lower on a motorcycle than a bicycle. Motorcycles have suspension as well.

Exactly how one or some combination of the the three should make such a difference in tire needs escapes me. Perhaps this has been addressed somewhere?

[retrogrouchy]

Scamium?

Same-ium?

I always liked Tom Ritchey's Moron tubing - more on the ends! :banana:

[e-RICHIE]

Same-ium?

I always liked Tom Ritchey's Moron tubing - more on the ends! :banana:


er greg i think that was scot nicol's gig atmo.

[mschol17]

Returning this thread back to the original topic, does anyone have any thoughts about my criticism of the study's assumptions?

[retrogrouchy]

er greg i think that was scot nicol's gig atmo.

As you wish, my liege. Was that tubing at least ill-tempered?

[mister]

Race motorcycles, of course, put a lot more power to the tires than bicycle. Presumably the center of gravity is lower on a motorcycle than a bicycle. Motorcycles have suspension as well.


its about maximizing the contact patch of the tire because the motorcycle has more than enough power to overcome the increase in rolling resistance and also the motorcycle has an engine powerful enough to lose traction accelerating in a straight line.

motorcycles and bicycles don't have much in common other than both having two wheels.

[michael white]

its about maximizing the contact patch of the tire because the motorcycle has more than enough power to overcome the increase in rolling resistance and also the motorcycle has an engine powerful enough to lose traction accelerating in a straight line.

motorcycles and bicycles don't have much in common other than both having two wheels.

yep, a bike rider is putting out one third of a horsepower

that same guy on a 430 pound FZ1 has 150 hp at his disposal

not a good comparison

[Joellogicman]

in nearly every sport of which I am aware. Stands to reason cyclists have improved the same as those in other sports.

I have no idea whether Heine or anyone has figured out a way to compare the 1950s' cyclists to today's and extrapolate from that the affect frame design has on performance.

I fully expect 30 years from now people will be saying whatever racers rider today stinks.

[Joellogicman]

yep, a bike rider is putting out one third of a horsepower

that same guy on a 430 pound FZ1 has 150 hp at his disposal

not a good comparison

Why wouldn't lighter skinnier tires make one 150 hp bike faster than a 150 hp with super wide slicks?

There has to be more to it than that.

[rounder]

It sounds like a Ken Robb question. Cars don't necessarily go faster on skinny tires, which are much more low pressure than bike tires. Maybe it has to do with a certain amount of air volume for the tire and contact patch for the course, and for the car.

[michael white]

Why wouldn't lighter skinnier tires make one 150 hp bike faster than a 150 hp with super wide slicks?

There has to be more to it than that.

450 times the power. not really that hard to grasp. you need more contact patch or very bad things happen.

[goonster]

I don't have anything against Jan, and I'm a BQ subscriber. However, if you're going to print a magazine and present data then you need to do so correctly. Scientific method and all that.

The Peg review never pretended to be anything other than a purely subjective report of ride impressions. No data is presented other than how Jan felt it did on his favorite loop on that particular day.

Things like rolldown tests and statistical analyses are a different story . . .

Jan has a lengthy track record on what he prefers in a bike. I totally agree that the bike was not properly sized for him, but I doubt very much that a 57 cm Peg with a 13 cm stem would rock his world under the best of circumstances. How is that cause for outrage?

What is to be gained from an online lynching? The way I see it, there might be a big upside for quite a few folks if Jan were provided with an optimally-fitted Love #3 and an opportunity for a follow-up review. The Peg fans are in for some measure of vindication, Jan can show his open-mindedness and might learn something about modern-race-bike-fitting, etc.

[Jack Brunk]

I don't think it's so much the love 3 as it is how bad the bike looks as it sits. If it were any of the builders on these forums then **** would have hit the fan and rightfully so. That bike looks terrible.

[goonster]

I think the bicycle speed article has some major problems in it's initial assumptions. Here are a few of my questions.

They are all excellent, valid points.

Not all racers in the Tour go all-out in every stage, but the peloton generally goes just fast enough to catch the breakaway, which is working desperately to stay away. Time trial might be interesting to a certain point, but I think most of the advances there are attributable solely to the rider's position, which is valuable and interesting but doesn't relate to technological advances of the bike per se.

We have some idea about when EPO was introduced to the peloton, but how many riders were using it, how quickly and to what extent? I agree though, that I expected a steeper slope in that era.

I also agree that the data is fundamentally noisy. There is no smoking gun here. The question remains in my mind: the advances claimed by those who make bikes (lighter! stiffer! faster!) must be significant and quantifiable. How then to show it?

The perfect experiment might look like this:

100 Cat. 3 racers, selected at random, time trial the bike of their choice over a hilly 50-mile course on April 1st, June 1st and August 1st with no drafting. Repeat for 100 years on the same course, plot curve of average speeds for each year. Who wants to write the grant proposal?

[retrogrouchy]

The Peg review never pretended to be anything other than a purely subjective report of ride impressions. No data is presented other than how Jan felt it did on his favorite loop on that particular day.

Things like rolldown tests and statistical analyses are a different story . . .

Jan has a lengthy track record on what he prefers in a bike. I totally agree that the bike was not properly sized for him, but I doubt very much that a 57 cm Peg with a 13 cm stem would rock his world under the best of circumstances. How is that cause for outrage?

What is to be gained from an online lynching? The way I see it, there might be a big upside for quite a few folks if Jan were provided with an optimally-fitted Love #3 and an opportunity for a follow-up review. The Peg fans are in for some measure of vindication, Jan can show his open-mindedness and might learn something about modern-race-bike-fitting, etc.

Don't expect any intelligent responses to this! ;)

[goonster]

450 times the power. not really that hard to grasp. you need more contact patch or very bad things happen.

Agreed, and I forget how the motorcycle tires even entered into the discussion, but I think it was related to descending, and also why today's race bikes have tires that are 23 mm wide and not 30+ mm.

We all know what MTB DH bikes look like. Imagine a bike whose sole purpose is to go fast downhill on paved roads. That bike would not look like a Trek Madone, and its tires would be wider than 23 mm. As I read it, the sole purpose for Jan's introduction of motorcycles into the discussion is to prove the point that a 700 x 23c wheel is not ideal for going downhill fast, and road bikes have them for other, entirely valid reasons. (Jan does not advocate wider tires for racing on smooth roads. He advocates them for bikes with non-trivial loads ridden on routes that may include gravel, chipseal and such)

[goonster]

I don't think it's so much the love 3 as it is how bad the bike looks as it sits. If it were any of the builders on these forums then **** would have hit the fan and rightfully so. That bike looks terrible.
That's as subjective as Jan's opinions on how a bike should respond to a decreasing-radius turn.

If that's really what's at the root of the f-bomb slinging, chest thumping and neck-vein bulging over there then VSalon is the most insecure, shallow, ponciest bunch of style whores around. atmo.

[retrogrouchy]

That's as subjective as Jan's opinions on how a bike should respond to a decreasing-radius turn.

If that's really what's at the root of the f-bomb slinging, chest thumping and neck-vein bulging over there then VSalon is the most insecure, shallow, ponciest bunch of style whores around. atmo.

We have a winner! :beer:

Don, tell the goonster what he's won.... :D

[William]

A years supply of fancy hand crafted heart shaped Twizzlers?

http://www.mattmchugh.com/blog/blogimages/twizzler_heart_good.jpg




William ;)

[round]

It's not aluminum it's scandium.

Above Category Racing uses both Love #3 and Marcelos (steel). There's no way a 3 man shop could sponsor a pro tour team. Pro tour teams ride what their sponsors give them.

The dropped top tube is to stiffen up the main triangle. He did this on Indurain's bikes back in the very beginning of tig welded bikes in the peloton.

That bike that Jan rode was a 60 cm. If you measure the virtual tt, where the tt would go on a non-dropped frame, it would be 58.5 cm. Jan rode a race bike with 2 cm of drop and a 10 cm stem. His contact points might have been "good enough" (even though his bars were 40mm too high), but where he was in relation to the wheels was not optimal. Therefore, any conclusions he reached about the handling of the bike are completely invalid. Not only that, but he didn't just say, "I didn't like the way it handled." He basically said, "Pegoretti's are more about the name and the story than the bike." That's more insulting and naive than anything anyone said in the thread.
from another point of view can be a compliments and a contradiction, what's make the name and the story ?
i think that is close to impossible to establish , growe up and keep a company's reputation with bad products for a long time .
sorry for the intrusion
saludos
dario

[Joellogicman]

(Jan does not advocate wider tires for racing on smooth roads. He advocates them for bikes with non-trivial loads ridden on routes that may include gravel, chipseal and such)

A BQ article last year suggested wider tires have less rolling resistance on real road conditions. I recycled the magazine a long time ago, but believe some Japanese 32s came out best.

[Joellogicman]

We all know what MTB DH bikes look like.

While MTBs consistently use significantly wider tires than road bikes, off road Motorcycles tend to use narrower tires than their road counterparts - albeit with tread patterns similar to MTB tires.

[djg]

That's as subjective as Jan's opinions on how a bike should respond to a decreasing-radius turn.

If that's really what's at the root of the f-bomb slinging, chest thumping and neck-vein bulging over there then VSalon is the most insecure, shallow, ponciest bunch of style whores around. atmo.

I dunno. I've wandered in and out of both threads, amazed at their longevity. A pal once told me that every good sized physics department has at least one crank. I reckon every Internet chat thing has at least three or eleven. Cross off the three wackiest contributors and then take a look. Sure, there are some wannabe protest-too-much folks over there, but maybe it's more significant to notice that they're over there because a certain concentration of serious frame builders are over there, as well as folks who are in other bits of the business and have significant cycling backgrounds to boot. It seems to me that if Richard Sachs or Dave Kirk looks at a setup and thinks "horrors, that's way wrong" then maybe there's a fair bit more going on than just a fashion statement or "I like red mf" statement of preference plus vitriol. Neither one of those guys needs to be your cup of tea for you to realize that their judgments are borne of a certain experience and expertise, and that "looks wrong" means something about design and function and that, eff it, they ought to be passionate about such things -- way, way more so than hack amateur masters racers like me, who've never built a frame and don't want to. Moreover, I think that some of the snippets of review seemed needlessly dismissive, which likely rubbed a few of Dario's actual pals entirely the wrong way.

For myself, some of that, and this, and all sorts of other things seemed way over the top, but no doubt I've rubbed a few folks the wrong way here and there too.

For myself as well -- and just for myself -- I'm not nearly so particular about "the" right way somebody else's bike should be setup . . .and I still thought the setup of the test Pegoretti looked ridiculous.

[e-RICHIE]

For myself as well -- and just for myself -- I'm not nearly so particular about "the" right way somebody else's bike should be setup . . .
agreed - as long as it fits, kinda sorta.
and I still thought the setup of the test Pegoretti looked ridiculous.
was it a test, or was it a review atmo?
there was no data presented or references to his favorite loop.
that's key.

[Onno]

Haven't had time to read all the pages between the first and last, so sorry if this was suggested before. The study sounds like an inept way of testing the hypothesis, though. Wouldn't the simplest be to a rider ride same course, on an old bike, and then on a spanking new one, and then measure the time it takes to complete the course on each one? Do this several times, with appropriate rest in between. I think that would be far more definitive, though perhaps not very interesting, in the end.

[Joellogicman]

but maybe it's more significant to notice that they're over there because a certain concentration of serious frame builders are over there, as well as folks who are in other bits of the business and have significant cycling backgrounds to boot.

What makes one frame builder more 'serious' than another?

Is a Dario Pegoretti a more serious frame builder than a Mike Flannigan because the former makes primarily race bikes and the latter mostly commuters?

Or are both of the above more serious than [names intentionally omitted] who build frames along with, say, running a popular local bike shop?

Saying one is more serious than another is loaded and subjective in my opinion.

[Joellogicman]

Haven't had time to read all the pages between the first and last, so sorry if this was suggested before. The study sounds like an inept way of testing the hypothesis, though. Wouldn't the simplest be to a rider ride same course, on an old bike, and then on a spanking new one, and then measure the time it takes to complete the course on each one? Do this several times, with appropriate rest in between. I think that would be far more definitive, though perhaps not very interesting, in the end.

Physical and mental quirks could easily lead to better performance on the one than the other.

Even if you used a large sample group, the data could be problematic. Depending on their age, most or all of the athletes have spent all their competitive time on newer design bikes. They may not ride all out on an older design which they are not used to riding.

[RonW87]

Dario (Round) himself has been kind enough to contribute to the conversation directly.

Dario, if I might be so bold, would you mind providing your thoughts on how the following factors would affect the handling of a Love No. 3?

1. Rider that normally fits a 57cm frame riding on a 60 cm frame;
2. Handlebars that are 4cm higher than optimal;
3. 10cm stem;
4. Saddle with insufficient setback (common issue with Brooks, although maybe in this case the saddle was OK relative to cranks).

Grazie,
Ron

ps. One day I'll own a Luigino (the double crown fork makes me swoon).

[mister]

Dario (Round) himself has been kind enough to contribute to the conversation directly.

Dario, if I might be so bold, would you mind providing your thoughts on how the following factors would affect the handling of a Love No. 3?

1. Rider that normally fits a 57cm frame riding on a 60 cm frame;
2. Handlebars that are 4cm higher than optimal;
3. 10cm stem;
4. Saddle with insufficient setback (common issue with Brooks, although maybe in this case the saddle was OK relative to cranks).

Grazie,
Ron

ps. One day I'll own a Luigino (the double crown fork makes me swoon).

i was gonna comment on this earlier. the wheels are far from where they should be in relation to the contact points.
jan riding the 60cm frame instead of a 55/56 or even 57 puts the front wheel 2-3cm out further than it should be most likely.
the bike as tested is nowhere close to how dario designed the frame to be setup. jan took a race bike and set it up like a rando/comfort bike.

if the frame is designed to be a race bike.
set it up like a race bike. jeez.
if you don't do this, then don't expect it to ride like the designer intended...

[Charles M]

A BQ article last year suggested wider tires have less rolling resistance on real road conditions. I recycled the magazine a long time ago, but believe some Japanese 32s came out best.


Yeah and the "DATA" was about as solid and dialed in as the "Data" here that suggests that Physics are suspended in the "real" world of bicycle tech that's been around for a longer period of time.


If you had a look at testing from Conti and Michelin and others, it goes the other way with regard to competition performance with wide tires.


There's a reason NO PRO TEAM AND OR IT'S SPONSOR tire manufacturer are running 32's... (And only in a race like Paris Roubaix do people run anything above 23)


If there were an advantage to vintage tire tech, it would test out that way and be used in competition...



The moto tire thing is off base too. MX motorcycle tires versus street, the "contact" patch on a knobby tire includes the surface area of the sides of the knobs. But even that bit of ignorance isn't key...

Moto traction requires manipulating the track surface in MX versus adhesion to a surface that can't be manipulated on the road...







I understand why certain publications and a certain crowd of builders and riders prefer to tip suggestion in favor of fat tires and materials that have been around for longer time periods...



Human nature says what you like is best and most people want others to agree with their judgment.



That's at the core of why folks might freak out when it comes to suggesting that a product or person with substantial similarities to their preferred product or builder type are not "est"...



I like every bike out there and pretty much all the builders...




But the Napoleonic complex in a certain segment is fuching pathetic at times...

[goonster]

If you had a look at testing from Conti and Michelin and others, it goes the other way with regard to competition performance with wide tires.
Where can I have a look at this research?

[retrogrouchy]

A BQ article last year suggested wider tires have less rolling resistance on real road conditions. I recycled the magazine a long time ago, but believe some Japanese 32s came out best.

But the lowest rolling resistance Jan and Co. have measured was for some 24 mm Challenge Criteriums, iirc, and they published that data as well. For sure tires are a complex balance of features (kind of like frames, I guess...). :cool:

[retrogrouchy]

Yeah and the "DATA" was about as solid and dialed in as the "Data" here that suggests that Physics are suspended in the "real" world of bicycle tech that's been around for a longer period of time.


If you had a look at testing from Conti and Michelin and others, it goes the other way with regard to competition performance with wide tires.


There's a reason NO PRO TEAM AND OR IT'S SPONSOR tire manufacturer are running 32's... (And only in a race like Paris Roubaix do people run anything above 23)


If there were an advantage to vintage tire tech, it would test out that way and be used in competition...



The moto tire thing is off base too. MX motorcycle tires versus street, the "contact" patch on a knobby tire includes the surface area of the sides of the knobs. But even that bit of ignorance isn't key...

Moto traction requires manipulating the track surface in MX versus adhesion to a surface that can't be manipulated on the road...







I understand why certain publications and a certain crowd of builders and riders prefer to tip suggestion in favor of fat tires and materials that have been around for longer time periods...



Human nature says what you like is best and most people want others to agree with their judgment.



That's at the core of why folks might freak out when it comes to suggesting that a product or person with substantial similarities to their preferred product or builder type are not "est"...



I like every bike out there and pretty much all the builders...




But the Napoleonic complex in a certain segment is fuching pathetic at times...

You said it there, dude, sir. ;)

[Joellogicman]

Yeah and the "DATA" was about as solid and dialed in as the "Data" here that suggests that Physics are suspended in the "real" world of bicycle tech that's been around for a longer period of time.

I do not race, and do not care one way or the other, really. Just wanted to understand what the counters to Heine's points are.


If there were an advantage to vintage tire tech, it would test out that way and be used in competition...

Wider is not necessarily vintage, is it? A 38" Schwalbe Marathon Supreme may not be found on many race bikes, but it certainly is a very modern design. Believe Schwalbe uses some of the same compounds it developed for the Supemes in the Ultremos.


The moto tire thing is off base too. MX motorcycle tires versus street, the "contact" patch on a knobby tire includes the surface area of the sides of the knobs. But even that bit of ignorance isn't key...

Moto traction requires manipulating the track surface in MX versus adhesion to a surface that can't be manipulated on the road...

The point Heine brought up across the hall - or appears to - he does not go into much detail - is that motorcycle tire choices are near opposite from bicycle - suggesting bicycle racing has it wrong. From the posts above, it appears the crucial difference is the power applied to the tire. Unless a cyclist has gravity assistance, there will not be enough power for a cyclist to take advantage of wider tires.



I understand why certain publications and a certain crowd of builders and riders prefer to tip suggestion in favor of fat tires and materials that have been around for longer time periods...

Human nature says what you like is best and most people want others to agree with their judgment..


Well maybe publications. I think builders - most of them anyway - specializing in Rando style bikes are drawn to the style because it works very well for increasingly popular credit card touring.

[Joellogicman]

But the lowest rolling resistance Jan and Co. have measured was for some 24 mm Challenge Criteriums, iirc, and they published that data as well. For sure tires are a complex balance of features (kind of like frames, I guess...). :cool:

As I said, I recycle the BQ after a quick read.

Challenge are the hand made tires, correct?

[retrogrouchy]

Yes, and those Triathlon tires were so good, that of course they discontinued them. First Rule of Marketing. :crap:

I ride mostly high-quality 21 mm tubulars, but I do have some bikes in the fleet with non-tubs of varying widths, and a couple with wider tubulars.

For multiple reasons, it is my opinion that really good 24-27 mm tires are a great compromise on today's (ever-deteriorating, in general) roads. And everything Engineered and made by humans is a compromise. There is (still) no free lunch. My wife now prefers the 26 mm. GB tires to the tubulars, for most riding. I'm so dyed-in-the-wool skinny-tire-oriented that I haven't really formed a 'final' opinion, but I sure dug those 29 mm Campionato del Mondo silk tubulars, 'back in the day.' :beer:

[Charles M]

That's absolutely right... You can get a pretty big RR spread even among tires at the same width depending on pressure, casing construction, tread compound, even glue and tube type. And there's more to tire performance than RR alone.


In competition / real world, you have to combine all of the variables in use AND at max potential.


It's not just "wide" v Narrow, it's the combination of optimal operating conditions that the tires work in.

People like to quote Schwalbe's site, but they make the claim about performance "at the same pressures" and "at speeds of roughly 20 KPH" when neither are relative to IN-USE performance. (it's a bit like this whole "new bikes have no advantage BS... If you twist the question a bit, and ignore some key things, you can get an answer that suites you.)




BUT it's important to note that not everyone is going for the same thing.

I love fat tire performance for touring and on my commuter bike... But within the "reasonable" terms of this thread, we're talking "performance" as relates to fast / race pace...


All of the major tire companies have researched road tire performance to death.


Don't think for a fraction of a second that any tire company (AND ESPECIALLY any marketing heavy multi product brand like Specialized, Trek) wouldn't jump head long at the chance to bring "OS Tire Tech" to market if there were even a small degree of verifiable evidence that their "hot new OS performance tires" were faster.

Both Bontrager and Specialized have new tires out every year... And the latest from both are pretty damn good.

Had the suggested benefit played out, it would have happened long ago...

[nahtnoj]

insecure, shallow, ponciest bunch of style whores around.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Provided both fit (which the bike Jan tested emphatically did not) there is a very marginal performance gain between a CAAD9 and a Love #3.

The same must be largely true for a Surly Long Haul Trucker and a bespoke rando bike, no?

I may be shallow, I may be a style whore, but I'm not insecure. Give me the Love or a Goodrich any day of the week. Provided they fit me.

I didn't read anyone telling Jan his theories were wrong for his preferred style of riding.

[Joellogicman]

People like to quote Schwalbe's site, but they make the claim about performance "at the same pressures" and "at speeds of roughly 20 KPH" when neither are relative to IN-USE performance. (it's a bit like this whole "new bikes have no advantage BS... If you twist the question a bit, and ignore some key things, you can get an answer that suites you.)

They make both types of tires. Wonder why they confuse the issue?

[djg]

What makes one frame builder more 'serious' than another?

Is a Dario Pegoretti a more serious frame builder than a Mike Flannigan because the former makes primarily race bikes and the latter mostly commuters?

Or are both of the above more serious than [names intentionally omitted] who build frames along with, say, running a popular local bike shop?

Saying one is more serious than another is loaded and subjective in my opinion.

Um . . . I didn't say anything about Mike Flannigan or ANT bikes and I don't think I said that any builder in particular was unserious or a hack or less serious. We can muck about with various usage for the word "serious" but I'll go out on a limb here and say that Richard Sachs, Dave Kirk, Tom Kellog, Dazza, and Dario -- all folks who've posted over there, and here too, if some much more than others -- are committed, experienced, accomplished, and . . . what the heck, I stick with "serious" frame builders. I don't have an algorithm to run or a physical constant to document, but I think that my characterization is fair enough and I'm surprised that you seem to take issue with it.

[djg]

agreed - as long as it fits, kinda sorta.

was it a test, or was it a review atmo?
there was no data presented or references to his favorite loop.
that's key.

Fair enough question, Richard. Likely "review" would have been a better word, although not all tests are rigorous or systematic and data might be worth more or less depending on all sorts of things -- like the sort of test at issue and the scientific context (if any) in which it's done. Frankly, I've seen attempts to gather data that look far worse than any subjective musings.

[stuckey]

Wow this **** is ridiculous, it seems the rare time I check these boards the asshats are screaming because someone did not kiss one of there heros asses. The Framebuilders collective, ha, ha, ha. Ride your bikes and quit your crying.

[SamIAm]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Provided both fit (which the bike Jan tested emphatically did not) there is a very marginal performance gain between a CAAD9 and a Love #3.

The same must be largely true for a Surly Long Haul Trucker and a bespoke rando bike, no?

I may be shallow, I may be a style whore, but I'm not insecure. Give me the Love or a Goodrich any day of the week. Provided they fit me.

I didn't read anyone telling Jan his theories were wrong for his preferred style of riding.

This whole fit thing is a red herring. It is the easy target for the Peg lovers/defenders. Jan knows his way around a bike well enough to have compensated for these minor differences in handling. Why is it such a surprise that he didn't like a stiff race bike with high-ish trail? You think he is going to throw a leg over a smaller version of the Love 3 and it's going to be a lovefest. He likes bikes that flex with low-ish trail.

This is a bit like arguing with a movie critic. How does one win such an argument? His subjective findings are irrefutably correct as are the subjective findings of a Love 3 enthusiast. People like what they like.

I love having the name of a builder that I know/admire on the downtube of my bikes and that makes them perform better for me, because there is a level of performance/confidence that takes place between the ears.

[Joellogicman]

Um . . . I didn't say anything about Mike Flannigan or ANT bikes and I don't think I said that any builder in particular was unserious or a hack or less serious. We can muck about with various usage for the word "serious" but I'll go out on a limb here and say that Richard Sachs, Dave Kirk, Tom Kellog, Dazza, and Dario -- all folks who've posted over there, and here too, if some much more than others -- are committed, experienced, accomplished, and . . . what the heck, I stick with "serious" frame builders. I don't have an algorithm to run or a physical constant to document, but I think that my characterization is fair enough and I'm surprised that you seem to take issue with it.

perhaps not surprisingly given the sponsor's product, to use the term 'serious' when discussing racers, shops, builders, etc. Whether overtly intentional or not, the inference is racing is the cycling ideal. (the same appears to hold true across the hall)

There are many riders, builders, and shops with equal committment, experience and accomplishments to those you cite in the world of bicycles who have nothing to do with racing.

I do not see pointing out the slight as being any more displaced than pointing out Heine's slight against Dario.

[djg]

perhaps not surprisingly given the sponsor's product, to use the term 'serious' when discussing racers, shops, builders, etc. Whether overtly intentional or not, the inference is racing is the cycling ideal. (the same appears to hold true across the hall)

There are many riders, builders, and shops with equal committment, experience and accomplishments to those you cite in the world of bicycles who have nothing to do with racing.

I do not see pointing out the slight as being any more displaced than pointing out Heine's slight against Dario.

Well, I didn't mean to slight anybody and I kinda think that leaving a few names off a very short list that was never labeled definitive is a bit different from naming somebody in particular and slinging mud. But maybe we both know that at least a couple of my examples have built, and continue to build, bikes other than race bikes? I don't think your inference was necessary or anything like it given my post, but I'll take it at face value and repeat that I meant to slight no particular type of riding nor any particular builder.

Peace, I hope -- I'm out of this discussion.

[goonster]

Provided both fit (which the bike Jan tested emphatically did not) there is a very marginal performance gain between a CAAD9 and a Love #3.

The same must be largely true for a Surly Long Haul Trucker and a bespoke rando bike, no?
Not sure what your larger point is here, but I agree, and Jan has also essentially said the same thing in the pages of BQ.

The worst thing you can say about the Peg review (if you've read the whole thing and place it in context with Jan's well-known preferences) is that he damned the bike with faint praise. But frankly, no bike can possibly live up to the preposterous levels of hype accorded to the Pegs over there. So Jan is being punished for the sin of not drinking the Kool-Aid.

The fit thing is absolutely a diversion. First, because Jan acknowledged the sub-optimal fit off the bat. Second, (and this is where my heavily qualified 'style whore' quip came in) because the hullaballoo is in response to a single photo. It is an oft-repeated mantra that no single bike attribute is significant in isolation; the whole must be considered. Neither can we judge whether the bike fit Jan "well enough" without seeing him ride it.

[buck-50]

Dear god, this is still being argued? I haven't even gotten my copy of BQ yet.

I'll make one observation and then slink out- For @#$'s sake, it's just one man's opinion.

If you don't like his conclusions or his opinions, stop buying his magazine. I mean he's not out there hitting people over the head forcing his opinions on poor unsuspecting cyclists- Bicycling magazine probably has more print over-run every month that BQ prints in a year.

All this angry how dare he stuff is ludicrous. Jan has his opinions. Grant has his opinions. Judging from his paint jobs, Pegoretti has his own opinions. But that's all they are. Opinions.

Man cyclists can be dogmatic and thin-skinned when someone says something we don't agree with.

[retrogrouchy]

Dear god, this is still being argued? I haven't even gotten my copy of BQ yet.

I'll make one observation and then slink out- For @#$'s sake, it's just one man's opinion.

If you don't like his conclusions or his opinions, stop buying his magazine. I mean he's not out there hitting people over the head forcing his opinions on poor unsuspecting cyclists- Bicycling magazine probably has more print over-run every month that BQ prints in a year.

All this angry how dare he stuff is ludicrous. Jan has his opinions. Grant has his opinions. Judging from his paint jobs, Pegoretti has his own opinions. But that's all they are. Opinions.

Man cyclists can be dogmatic and thin-skinned when someone says something we don't agree with.

'zackly.

[gdw]

methinks you roadies should stop wearing panties under your bibs... they get twisted way too often.

[mister]

serotta should do like vsalon and just lock this now. it's done.
points have been argued. nothing much else to say.

[William]

http://www.moltenimage.com/photos/animated/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

[michael white]

http://www.moltenimage.com/photos/animated/beating-a-dead-horse.gif


I think the panties thing could be mentioned a couple more times. C'mon guys, you were just getting warmed up. It was really working, I swear!

[dancinkozmo]

Wow this **** is ridiculous, it seems the rare time I check these boards the asshats are screaming because someone did not kiss one of there heros asses. The Framebuilders collective, ha, ha, ha. Ride your bikes and quit your crying.

i like the guy across the hall who posted an "educated" love 3 review complete with a photo of his ride ...high seat , low bars and the nose of the saddle tilted down like 15 or 20 degrees :)

[mister]

i like the guy across the hall who posted an "educated" love 3 review complete with a photo of his ride ...high seat , low bars and the nose of the saddle tilted down like 15 or 20 degrees :)

and talked about 65mph descents. 40+ mph sprints after almost dying on a climb and of course how he's glad the pego is able to withstand his 2000watt output.
i thought maybe it was a sarcastic review but after reading a few more of his posts i think he's actually serious.

[retrogrouchy]

and talked about 65mph descents. 40+ mph sprints after almost dying on a climb and of course how he's glad the pego is able to withstand his 2000watt output.
i thought maybe it was a sarcastic review but after reading a few more of his posts i think he's actually serious.

In his parallel universe, of course.... :D

[fiamme red]

and talked about 65mph descents. 40+ mph sprints after almost dying on a climb and of course how he's glad the pego is able to withstand his 2000watt output.At 2,000 watts, he'd easily take Boonen or Cavendish in a sprint. :rolleyes:

[William]

At 2,000 watts, he'd easily take Boonen or Cavendish in a sprint. :rolleyes:

http://boisdeluzy.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2007/08/sean-connery.1187985397.jpg

Have you met him? He can do it...even with his panties in a bunch.



Just sayin'



William ;)